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, non-mutating operation. The description adds details about the return values in different states, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (though likely none) or edge cases, but given the annotations, the extra info about URLs is sufficient for a 3.

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 to the point. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides state examples. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, with every sentence adding value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior in different scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It provides enough information for an agent to know what to expect. It could mention example URL formats, but that is not essential for a status-check tool. The annotations cover safety, so the completeness is good.

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 0 parameters, so the description has little to add. However, the description clarifies what the output contains (e.g., connect_url when not authenticated), which indirectly explains how to interpret the response. Since there are no params, a baseline of 4 might be considered, but the description's clarity about return states is sufficient; no parameter-specific info is needed.

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 that it returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about different states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and marketplace, as it is a read-only status inspection 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 when to use it: when the agent needs to check connection status, especially to see if providers are connected or if credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling names (e.g., authenticate for initiating auth, connect for checking status).

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