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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the authenticated state, the pending array, and the connect URLs returned in the missing-credentials case. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's read-only semantics are consistent with them, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every clause conveys needed conditional behavior. No filler or repetition beyond what is useful.

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?

For a parameterless read-only status tool, the description is complete: it describes normal connected state and degraded missing-credentials state, and no output schema pushes the burden onto the description. A small explicit 'use this to check connectivity' sentence could be nice, but it is already sufficient given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter burden is minimal. With no parameters to explain, the description's focus on returned value semantics is appropriate and fully sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and the conditional outcomes ('authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs 'connect_url') make the tool's scope unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this status-checking tool from the sibling 'authenticate' tool.

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 situational context: when providers are connected, what to expect; when credentials are missing, what URLs are returned. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of authenticate', so it lacks the strong when/when-not differentiation that would earn a 5.

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