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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing exactly what the response contains in different states: authenticated true vs pending[] and connect_url vs per-install URLs. This is useful transparency for an agent expecting to interact with connection state.

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 compact: two sentences front-load the primary purpose and then elaborate with concrete conditional outputs. Every phrase contributes meaningful information with no repetition or filler.

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 with no output schema, this description adequately explains return conditions and URL behavior. It is slightly incomplete around partial connection states, but it covers the main usage scenarios sufficiently for a basic readiness check tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per calibration guidance, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because the schema and annotations already cover all input 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditions ('authenticated:true', 'empty pending[]', 'connect_url'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named alternative.

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 when to use this tool—when you need connection status and pending authentication URLs—through its conditional behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives such as authenticate, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than directly stated.

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