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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the different return states (authenticated vs. pending) which is useful, but does not disclose potential network calls or any side effects beyond what is described, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 highly concise, two sentences that fully capture the purpose and key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about return values and states. It covers the main use cases (all connected, missing credentials) and is complete for a status-checking tool, though it could mention whether the status is real-time or cached.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description fully compensates by explaining the output behavior in different scenarios, making the tool's usage clear without needing parameter documentation. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about authenticated:true and pending[] when all providers are connected. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates connections) by focusing on status retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it: to check connection status and retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. It provides clear context on what the tool returns in different scenarios, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate.

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