Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations, specifying the exact output structure under different conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, which already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the tool's primary purpose. It front-loads the main action and then elaborates on expected outcomes with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, clear output states), the description provides all necessary context. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, while the description explicitly details the return values and the conditions that trigger different responses. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the description's mention of key fields like authenticated, pending, and connect_url.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding any redundant parameter information. The schema coverage is effectively 100% since no properties exist, so the description is not required to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool's function: returning connection status and URLs, with specific details on the two primary outcomes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve different purposes. The resource is unambiguous ('connection status' and URLs).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies it is for checking connection status, but lacks a clear 'use this when...' statement or any mention of alternative scenarios. No exclusions or recommended usage contexts are included.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.