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

The description adds conditional behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, explaining that authenticated:true and empty pending[] appear when connected, and connect_url appears when credentials are missing. This is genuinely useful context for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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 long and front-loads the primary purpose. It wastes no words and packs meaningful conditional output detail into a compact space.

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 no-argument, read-only status tool, the description covers the main return scenarios: authenticated with empty pending, and missing-credential state with toolkit/per-install URLs. It does not specify the full response shape, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that the description provides adequate context.

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 a concern. The description is clear that the tool takes no input and simply returns status, which is sufficient.

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 explicitly says the tool returns connection status and URLs, which clearly identifies its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by being a read-only status check rather than an action that establishes a connection.

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 gives clear conditional context for when to use the tool: to check whether all providers are connected or to see what connect URLs are available when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of authenticate', but the read-only status framing makes that implied.

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