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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, the description adds valuable behavioral context: what 'authenticated' returns in different credential states and the presence of connect_url. This exceeds annotation coverage and fully explains the tool's non-destructive nature.

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?

Two sentences, immediately informative, no fluff. The most critical detail (returns status and URLs) is stated first, with conditional behavior following logically. Every word earns its 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 read-only, parameterless status endpoint, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes and even reveals internal response fields. There is no output schema to account for, and the description is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and nothing is left ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URL retrieval, and the conditional details make its function unambiguous.

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 when to use it (to check connection status) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions. The conditional behavior is explained, but there is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, only implied usage.

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