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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds meaningful context about the two response states (authenticated vs. connect URLs), giving an agent useful expectations about returned data without needing to call the tool.

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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, state behavior, and URL semantics with no redundancy. The key success condition is front-loaded, and every sentence adds information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to anticipate the main response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It could mention whether the response is JSON or whether fetch/refresh is needed, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select correctly.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the no-arg call returns in different connection states, which is more useful than the empty schema alone.

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 explains that this tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavior for connected vs. missing-credential states. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, which presumably initiates connection, by being a status/read tool rather than an action tool.

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 this is for checking connection status, especially when credentials may be missing, and contrasts with authenticate's likely action role. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the context plus sibling names gives clear enough guidance.

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