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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful conditional semantics: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. No contradiction with 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 sentences with dense, useful information. The opening sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence explains the two relevant outcome branches. No filler or redundant wording.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations), the description covers the main return behaviors well. It could go slightly deeper into the full set of states, but for this tool the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 parameter semantics are inherently minimal. The description still helps by explaining the meaning of the result under different credential states, which is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the resource clearly ('connection status and URLs'). It immediately signals what the tool does and the conditional authenticated/pending states help distinguish it from related tools like authenticate.

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 gives clear context for when calling this tool is meaningful: check connection status, and if credentials are missing, obtain connect URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intent is evident from the conditional behavior described.

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