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 covered. The description adds valuable context about return behavior (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and conditional logic, which enhances transparency beyond the annotations 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It explains the core functionality and two key conditional outcomes without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise.

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, empty schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions under which they appear, which fully satisfies what an agent needs to know. No output schema exists, so the description's coverage of return behavior is crucial and well done.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly explains the return values and does not need to elaborate on parameters. There is nothing to add beyond what the schema already implies.

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, specifying exact fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and conditional behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which likely performs authentication) and show_version (which returns version info). The purpose 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 implies when to use the tool (to check connection status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides conditional scenarios (when all providers connected vs when credentials missing) that help infer usage, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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