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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the two observable states: connected providers return authenticated:true and empty pending[], while missing credentials produce connect_url and per-install URLs. It could further clarify partial-connection states, but this is solid coverage.

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 dense sentences, first sentence states the core purpose, second explains the conditional outputs. Every phrase contributes without repetition or unnecessary context.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is nearly complete. It documents expected return signals for both the fully-connected and missing-credentials cases. However, there is no explicit coverage of partial connection states, and since no output schema exists, the description carries the entire burden of explaining outputs.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. Baseline 4 applies because there is no schema detail to explain and no hidden or optional parameters to clarify.

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: it 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying authenticated/pending and URL outputs, so there's no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 use when an agent needs to check whether providers are connected or obtain connection URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as 'authenticate' or 'show_version.'

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