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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about specific fields returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and conditional behavior, but could go further in explaining differences between 'connect_url' and 'per-install URLs'.

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 deliver all necessary context: what is returned and how it varies. Every clause earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose. Excellent example of concise, high-value writing.

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 there are no parameters and the output schema is absent, the description provides sufficient context for a status-check tool. The conditional behaviors are useful and make the tool's output predictable under different states.

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?

With 0 parameters, there is no schema to enrich, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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, specifying what happens under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It is distinct from siblings like show_version or toolkit_info by focusing on connection state, though it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 usage as a status read (returns authenticated, pending, connect_url), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative status tools like show_version or toolkit_info. The readOnlyHint annotation supports its safe read nature, but the description alone doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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