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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reveals the two distinct response states, including 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs. returning connect_url and per-install URLs 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded ('connection status and URLs') before the conditional details.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: get connection status and related URLs, with explicit conditions for the two likely outcomes. It could have been slightly more explicit about exact response fields, but because the tool is simple and annotations are strong, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 4. The input schema covers everything needed, and there are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent arguments.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' Its conditional explanation (authenticated:true when all providers are connected, connect_url when credentials are missing) makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools 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 gives clear situational context: call this when you need connection status and URLs after authentication. It explains the two expected states, making it easy to infer when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use authenticate instead when credentials are absent.'

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