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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: returning authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not address partial connection states, which is a minor gap.

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, with exactly two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then explain key behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or excessive detail.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the two most important scenarios (all connected, missing credentials). However, it does not mention partial connection states or what happens when some providers are connected and others are not, which would make it more 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for parameter semantics. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for additional parameter-related context.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing an authentication flow. The mention of specific return values in different connection states further reinforces its unique purpose.

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 implies the tool is used for checking connection status and URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'authenticate'). It provides context about the scenarios it covers (all connected vs. missing credentials) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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