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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what happens under different connection states, including the presence of connect_url 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then detailing conditional behavior. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundant repetition of annotations or schema.

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 simple zero-parameter nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main return scenarios well. It doesn't explicitly address partial-provider connection states, but the provided conditions are sufficient for most use cases.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description correctly focuses on output behavior instead. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('Returns connection status and URLs') and specifies meaningful conditional outputs (authenticated vs pending, connect_url). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by framing this as a status/URL inspection tool rather than an auth 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 explains the tool's conditional behavior clearly, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over authenticate or other siblings. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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