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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, idempotentHint:true, and destructiveHint:false, and the description aligns with those. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining the two conditional response states around authentication and missing credentials. It does not contradict annotations.

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 core action and output: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The second sentence adds the conditional behavior without padding, making both sentences earn their place.

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, parameter-free connector status tool, the description conveys the main output states needed by the agent. It covers the connected case and the missing-credential case, and with no return schema present, still communicates key response semantics. A small improvement would be defining what 'per-install URLs' means, but overall it is adequate.

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 and an empty properties object, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. There is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry, so 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?

Description states a specific action and result: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like `authenticate` by framing this as a status-reporting tool rather than a mutating/auth action, while describing conditional outputs.

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 gives clear conditions for the tool's outputs: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This effectively implies when to call it, though it does not explicitly state do not use this when the goal is to perform authentication rather than check status.

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