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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: the specific fields returned ('authenticated:true', 'empty pending[]', 'connect_url', 'per-install URLs') and the conditions under which they appear. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 crisp sentences. The first states the primary action and second details conditional outputs. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple parameter-less tool, the description covers the two most important states: fully connected and missing credentials. It doesn't detail partial connection states (e.g., some providers missing) but the 'empty pending[]' hint implies pending holds incomplete ones. Slightly more detail on trailing edge cases would make it complete, but it's adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't add parameter details (none needed) but compensates by describing the response structure, which is helpful given no output schema exists.

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 ('authenticated:true') and conditions ('When credentials are missing'). This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which handle authentication actions) 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 tool's purpose is obvious, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use when you need to check connection status' or contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate'. It does provide clear conditional contexts (all providers connected vs missing credentials), giving strong contextual guidance without naming alternatives.

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