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 description only adds context about the return format (authenticated, pending, connect_url). This is some added value beyond annotations but is not extensive; it doesn't mention rate limits, security, or any unexpected behavior. 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?

Description is two sentences, efficient, and directly states the purpose and two key conditional outputs. No unnecessary fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Even without output schema, the description explains the two main outcome shapes. It covers connection status and URLs, and mentions pending[]. For a simple stateless read-only tool, this is fairly complete. However, it could specify the exact structure of the returned object (e.g., fields) but the given scenarios suffice.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The schema already fully covers the lack of parameters; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, which is specific verb+resource, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like authenticate. It implies the purpose but leaves the agent to infer when to use it over alternatives.

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 conditional scenarios (when all providers are connected vs. when credentials missing) that help the agent understand behavioral expectations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like authenticate or show_version. No explicit exclusion or alternative is mentioned.

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