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 behavioral detail by specifying the output format in two scenarios: 'returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations, providing concrete expectations without contradicting them.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each sentence earns its place by describing distinct conditional outcomes. There is zero redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the behavior: it discloses the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and specifies the return values (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and expect the output, making it contextually complete.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The schema is already empty, and the description adds no parameter-related details, which is appropriate given the absence of params.

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 and URLs'), and the conditional behavior ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') further clarifies its scope. This distinguishes it from 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?

While not explicit about when to use vs. alternatives, the description implies usage: check connection status by calling this tool. It provides context ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...') that helps agents decide when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of authenticate to check status.' Still, the clarity is adequate.

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