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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that by specifying return-conditionals: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. Since there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is valuable.

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 purpose, and no filler. The conditional states are described efficiently and every clause adds concrete information about behavior or return values.

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 zero-parameter connection-status tool, this description is complete. It covers the primary success state and the missing-credentials state, and the annotations cover safety and side-effect expectations. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the key return distinctions an agent needs.

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, so the schema provides no semantic guidance and the description does not need to explain parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description fully covers the tool's observable input surface—there is nothing missing.

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's function: returning connection status and URLs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than the auth flow itself.

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 the tool by outlining two distinct states (all connected vs. missing credentials), which helps an agent decide if connection checking is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is clear enough from the content.

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