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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by disclosing the exact response fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and how they vary based on connection status, which goes beyond annotation information.

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, front-loaded with the primary function, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys conditional behavior without redundancy.

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?

While the description explains two clear states (all connected, missing credentials), it omits partial connectivity scenarios (some providers connected, others not). Given no output schema, the description should more fully cover possible return states for a status 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details. No parameter information 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 the tool's function: returning connection status and URLs. It specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'connection status and URLs', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action.

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 context on when the tool behaves differently (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate'. It implies usage for checking status before authenticating but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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