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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful state-dependent behavior beyond those annotations, such as the meaning of authenticated:true, empty pending[], and the per-install URLs returned when credentials are missing.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second covers the main conditional outcomes. Every sentence provides useful information 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations, this description covers the main behavior and conditional outputs well. Exact response field names or a fuller example would make it even more complete, but it is sufficient for an agent to know when and why to call it.

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%, so no additional parameter explanation is needed. The description adds information about behavior and return values, which is more relevant here than parameter detail.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional behavior ('authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' vs. 'connect_url' and per-install URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate by framing it as a read-only status/URL retrieval 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 conditional description indicates when this tool is useful: checking whether all providers are connected or retrieving connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use instead of authenticate', but the status/URL focus makes the usage context reasonably clear.

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