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

Annotations cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: it states that authenticated:true with an empty pending array occurs when all providers are connected, and that missing credentials yield a connect_url and per-install URLs. This aligns with annotations and enriches the operational model.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes useful conditional details. It avoids repetition, filler, or visual noise.

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?

With no parameters, a simple output model, and strong annotations, this description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool. It explains both the success state and the missing-credentials state, which are the main scenarios an agent would need to anticipate.

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 input schema has no parameters, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description adequately focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and the zero-parameter nature of the tool makes this point moot.

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's function: returning connection status and URLs. It also distinguishes this tool from likely siblings by contrasting a state-checking tool (connect) against an auth-action tool (authenticate), especially through its conditional descriptions of successful and missing-credential states.

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 the tool by explaining what it returns in different connection states, but it does not explicitly say when to use connect versus an alternative like authenticate or marketplace. Clear context is provided, but there is no direct exclusion or comparison to sibling tools.

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