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 behavioral context about the response structure (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url and per-install URLs), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like rate limits or auth requirements, but given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the two possible states 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact format of the URLs, but that is not critical.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and under what conditions, which is the relevant semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is justified.

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 possible states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication or showing version info.

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 (to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides context about the two states, which helps the agent decide, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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