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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds useful context about response content (authenticated true/false, pending array, connect_url) beyond what annotations provide. This adds some value, but the description does not go into deeper behavior like what happens when pending partial connections.

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 then explains conditional outputs. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema, but rich annotations and clear return behavior), the description is complete enough. It explains the two primary states and the URLs provided. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens when some providers are connected and others are not, which could be valuable given the sibling 'authenticate' 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description provides meaning about what the tool returns without needing to explain parameters. With no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds value by explaining the return semantics.

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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, and provides conditional behaviors (when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status and URLs. However, it could more explicitly contrast with 'authenticate' to avoid confusion.

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?

It implies the tool is used to check connection status and get URLs, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs 'authenticate' or other sibling tools. The conditional behavior gives some context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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