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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, idempotentHint:true, and destructiveHint:false. The description adds valuable context beyond that, specifying exact output conditions (authenticated:true and empty pending[] when connected, connect_url when credentials missing), which is not derivable from 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy and provides necessary details on two distinct states.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it returns in different scenarios. It is complete for a status-checking tool, and the description adequately explains the return values.

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 0 parameters, and per the baseline the score is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist. It explains the output sufficiently without needing parameter semantics.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (connection status, URLs), and it distinguishes from siblings like authenticate or marketplace by focusing solely on status retrieval.

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 context on when the tool is relevant (checking connection status) and describes behavior under different conditions (connected vs missing credentials). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when...', but the context is sufficient for a simple status tool.

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