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

The description discloses concrete behavioral states, such as returning 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' vs. returning connect and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explaining conditional output, though it does not detail the exact structure of URLs or pending[].

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 (two sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and every word adds value by explaining both success and failure scenarios.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values in different conditions. The tool's simplicity does not require more detail, and sibling context makes its role clear.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage and the description naturally has little to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning connection status and URLs, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/chECK rather than performing authentication.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is used: it explains two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and implies that it helps decide whether to authenticate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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