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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the two possible return states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs, which is useful. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the response or any potential side effects, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and every sentence adds specific information about the two states. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the two possible outcomes and the URLs returned. It could mention the format of the response (e.g., JSON structure) but that is not required given the simplicity. The description covers the essential behavior for an agent to use it correctly.

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% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining what the response contains in different scenarios, which is the only meaningful semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, the description appropriately focuses on output behavior, earning a high score.

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, and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status reporting rather than initiating authentication or providing general info. It could be more explicit about the resource being 'connection status' but the verb 'returns' and the specific fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) make the purpose clear.

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: call this to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate, toolkit_info) suggests it is for status checks. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it meets the baseline but lacks depth.

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