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 value by disclosing the exact return behavior in both the fully-connected and missing-credentials cases, including 'authenticated:true', 'empty pending[]', and 'connect_url'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three short, well-structured sentences: a general purpose statement followed by two conditional branches. Every sentence contributes information, and the most important detail—'connection status and URLs'—is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers the primary expected behaviors and return contexts. It does not explicitly describe a partially-connected or in-progress authentication state, but the common scenarios of 'all connected' and 'credentials missing' are sufficient for this simple tool.

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 input schema is empty and parameter count is 0, so the description is not required to explain parameter details. It still adds useful context by explaining what the no-parameter call will do and under which connection states the return content differs.

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 operation ('Returns connection status and URLs') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by emphasizing that it is a read-only status/URL inspection rather than an authentication action. It also specifies concrete expected outcomes, which strengthens the purpose definition.

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 usage by describing branches: when all providers are connected, and when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention that 'authenticate' should be used instead when credentials are missing, leaving the guidance to be inferred from sibling tool names.

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