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 concrete behavioral details: it returns connect_url when credentials are missing, and empty pending[] when all providers are connected. This goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 that are information-dense with zero fluff. Each sentence adds distinct value: first defines the tool's output, second explains the edge case 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?

The description fully explains the tool's behavior for a simple status endpoint. It could theoretically mention response formats, but with no parameters, no output schema, and clear semantics from sibling names, the description is complete for its complexity.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), the description's job is minimal. It doesn't need to document parameters. The baseline of 4 applies here since there are no parameters to describe.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavior for different conditions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the status-checking tool, especially with sibling names like 'authenticate' and 'toolkit_info'.

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 implies usage for checking connection status, and the sibling context suggests it's a read-only health check. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to call it versus 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'.

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