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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about response variations (authenticated:true vs connect_url) but does not explain side effects or deeper behavior beyond that. It does not contradict annotations, so no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It uses two sentences to convey the main behavior and conditional outcomes, with zero waste.

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 and an empty schema, the description covers the essential information about return values and conditions. It lacks some details like the exact structure of connect_url or per-install URLs, but given the simplicity, it is largely 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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the output semantics based on connection state, which is valuable beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 the 'authenticated' and 'pending' fields. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', the action verb 'returns' and resource (connection status) are clear.

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?

It implies usage for checking connection status and provides scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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