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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe getter. The description supplements this by detailing the two possible response states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url with per-install URLs), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary function. The second sentence provides conditional details efficiently without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output and states.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers both normal and fallback scenarios, making the tool's behavior fully predictable. The annotations cover safety, so no further context is needed.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the input schema provides no semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior, and since schema coverage is 100% (trivial), the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. No additional parametric explanation is needed.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info,' which deal with different concerns. The elaboration on the two output states (all connected vs missing credentials) further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—to check connection status—and implicitly indicates when it's relevant (e.g., diagnostic or initialization flow). While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names, so the lack of formal exclusions is acceptable.

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