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

The description discloses the exact behavioral outcomes based on connection state, including the return of 'authenticated:true' and 'empty pending[]' when all providers are connected, and 'connect_url' when credentials are missing. This goes well beyond the read-only and idempotent hints, providing rich context on what the tool returns.

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 and well-structured, using two sentences to convey the main purpose and then the conditional behaviors. It avoids redundant words and is easy to parse.

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 description covers the two primary scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not elaborate on potential error cases or edge conditions. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters or output schema, this is sufficiently complete for a status check.

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 no parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific information. Since the schema fully covers this aspect (zero parameters), the baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to add.

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 purpose: it returns connection status and URLs. It provides specific details about two possible outcomes, which makes its function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'show_version'.

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 describes what the tool does but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks a clear usage directive, such as 'use this to check if all providers are connected' or 'use this to determine if authentication is needed before proceeding.'

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