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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds useful behavioral details: it explains the difference between full connection (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and missing credentials (connect_url, per-install URLs). This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second elaborates on conditions and output details. No waste, every sentence earns its place.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is relatively complete for a status tool. It explains the two states and gives key fields. It could mention if there are any prerequisites, but for a read-only status check with no parameters, this is adequate.

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?

Since there are 0 parameters, the schema description coverage is 100% by default, and the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns, but it doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none. It meets the baseline.

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 purpose: it returns connection status and URLs. It explains the two states (all connected vs. credentials missing) and mentions the returned data fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings beyond implying it's about status, but given the scope is clear, it scores well.

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: to check connection status and obtain connect URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. There is some guidance via the conditions, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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