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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral nuance by disclosing the two main response states: fully connected, and missing credentials with connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail partial-connectivity behavior.

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-loads the primary purpose, and then delivers the key conditional outputs. Every clause adds value and there is no filler, tautology, or unnecessary repetition.

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, zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main states and return fields. It leaves some nuance unspecified (e.g., exact contents of pending[], partial connection scenarios), but the overall picture is sufficiently complete given the low complexity and strong annotations.

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 already covers everything. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail; it correctly focuses on output behavior.

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+resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It further clarifies the purpose by describing condition-dependent outputs (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and show_version.

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 usage context is implied: the agent would call this to check connection status. However, it never explicitly states when to use connect versus authenticate or other siblings, and it provides no exclusions or alternative-tool guidance. This is a clear but not explicit usage signal.

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