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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the two possible response states and what fields/URLs are returned in each. This is useful without being excessive.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the conditional details an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for explaining return values. It does explain the two main response modes and key fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). It could be slightly more explicit about the exact URL semantics, but for a simple zero-parameter read-only tool it is adequate and complete enough.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input surface. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for parameter ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes this from the sibling 'authenticate' by describing informational output rather than an authentication action. The two state conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials) provide concrete specificity.

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 gives clear context on when different outputs occur: when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context makes the read-only status-checking usage apparent, especially alongside the 'authenticate' sibling.

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