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 safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the output structure under different conditions (authenticated vs. missing credentials), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate responses. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then providing conditional details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return values. It covers the two main scenarios, but leaves some ambiguity around terms like 'per-install URLs' and 'pending' without further elaboration. For a simple status tool, this is sufficient, but a small nudge toward completeness would be needed for full clarity.

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 100% (no params to document). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description effectively avoids the need for parameter explanations. It focuses on output semantics instead, which is appropriate.

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, and explains the two primary outcomes: when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (connect_url and per-install URLs). This is a specific verb+resource with clear behavioral differentiation, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate or show_version.

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 usage for checking connection status and provides context on what happens when credentials are missing (returning URLs for connection). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like authenticate, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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