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 agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the two states (authenticated vs. missing credentials) and the presence of connect_url, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the response or any potential side effects, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 main purpose, and provides concrete details about the two possible outcomes. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 quite complete. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the exact format of the response or the meaning of 'pending[]', but for a status-check tool, this is sufficient. The sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info are not explicitly referenced, but the description's clarity makes it 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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does explain the output semantics (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url), which is valuable. Since there are no parameters, the description's focus on output behavior compensates for the lack of parameter info, earning a 4.

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 between all-connected and missing-credentials scenarios. It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), and it differentiates from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status rather than initiating auth or general 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 when to use it (to check connection status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides context about the two possible outcomes, which helps the agent decide, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over authenticate or other tools.

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