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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the return format (authenticated flag, pending[], connect_url) and the conditional behavior when credentials are missing. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior and return values.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description fully covers the expected return data and edge cases. Annotations cover safety, and the description provides sufficient behavioral context. Nothing essential is missing.

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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter explanations since none exist.

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?

Clearly states the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs', which is a specific verb and resource. The description differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates auth) and 'show_version' (which reports version info) by focusing on connection state.

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?

Provides implicit usage context (when all providers connected vs. when credentials missing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or competitor tool names mentioned, though the purpose is clear enough for a status check.

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