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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the output in different scenarios (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url). This provides behavioral insight that annotations alone (readOnly, idempotent) do not cover.

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, consisting of two short sentences that convey the necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to understand.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key contextual points: what it returns and the two possible outcomes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 (empty schema), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It is complete in that regard, as there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is its primary purpose. It distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing specifically on connection checks, avoiding ambiguity with sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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 explains the behavior under two distinct conditions (connected vs. missing credentials), which implicitly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of being fully explicit.

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