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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral differences between connected and missing-credential states, including the return of connect_url and per-install URLs, which exceeds the annotations. No contradiction is found.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second elaborates on the two possible outcomes. No redundant words or unnecessary details, earning every sentence's 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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers both key scenarios (all connected and missing credentials) and explains the return content (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). It is fairly complete, though it does not enumerate all possible states (e.g., partial connections), which prevents a perfect score.

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, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter clues. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly omits any parameter talk because none exist.

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, and goes further to explain two distinct response scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). This provides specific verb+resource clarity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely performs authentication) and show_version (version info).

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 implies it should be used to check connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions two response cases which gives context, but there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to choose instead. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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