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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This clarifies the output variations, going beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise sentences convey the core behavior and conditional outcomes. No fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose. 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 no parametersable and a read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: success state and missing-credential state, including the return fields. It's complete for its simplicity, and no further explanation is needed.

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 (schema coverage 100% trivially). Per the baseline for 0 params, score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates connections) by focusing on status reporting. The title 'Connection Status' reinforces the purpose.

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 for checking connection status and explains two distinct scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate', but the context makes it clear this is for status checks. Provides adequate guidance without explicit exclusions.

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