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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true Verde idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful detail on conditional outputs (e.g., connect_url when credentials missing, authenticated:true when all providers connected). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then explains conditional outputs. No redundancy or fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description is adequate given the simple, read-only nature of the tool. It covers the main output scenarios and no parameters exist. It doesn't explain error cases or response format in detail, but for a status check this is reasonably complete. Slightly incomplete in not mentioning what happens if credentials partially present or other edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and no parameters exist in the schema § neither enum nor required fields. Baseline 4 for no params is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to explain anything about parameters.

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, employing a specific verb (returns) and resource (connection status and URLs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than auth actions.

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?

It describes behavior based on connection state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used to check status or that authenticate should be used for authentication. No exclusions or alternative pointers are given.

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