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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail about conditional response states: authenticated:true and empty pending[] when fully connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded, beginning with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence provides specific conditional behavior, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool.

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 status tool with strong annotations, the description covers the two key states: fully connected and missing credentials. It provides specific return indicators (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). However, it does not fully define the structure of pending[] or address a possible partial-connection state, leaving slight ambiguity.

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, which reduces the need for parameter documentation. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, and with no schema fields to describe, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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, using the specific verb 'Returns' and defining the resource. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings like 'authenticate' by emphasizing this is a status/read operation, not an action that establishes a connection. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a top score.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated directly. The description indicates you can check whether all providers are connected and get URLs when credentials are missing, which implies a status-check use case. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions.

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