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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the two different response scenarios (connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions the per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it could have elaborated on response format or edge cases.

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 primary purpose. The first sentence summarizes the output, and the second covers the conditional case. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler. It is a model of conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers the expected behavior: it distinguishes between the connected state and the missing-credentials state, and mentions both the toolkit and per-install URLs. There are no other scenarios or edge cases that need explanation. The description is complete for its purpose.

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 the baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the guidelines. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics because none exist. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and there is nothing to clarify. The score reflects the baseline.

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 function: returning connection status and URLs. It specifies the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), making it distinct from siblings like authenticate or show_version. The verb 'returns' plus the resource 'connection status and URLs' is specific and 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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate or show_version. It implies it's for checking connection readiness, but there is no direct statement of when to prefer this over other tools. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions, but lacks explicit alternative naming, so it's middle-ground.

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