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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds value by specifying the actual response structure (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_urls) and differentiates between all-connected vs missing-credentials states. It does not add heavy behavioral warnings but supplements the annotation well.

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 extremely concise, only two sentences. It is well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing conditional details. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 that this is a simple status-check tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the key states (authenticated and pending). It could theoretically explain the structure of connect_url or the 'pending' array in more detail, but the description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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% (meaning there are no parameters to document). The description explains what the response contains, which serves as the only necessary semantics. It doesn't need to explain parameters, and the description adds meaningful output context beyond the schema.

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. It specifies the exact conditions for different states (authenticated:true when all providers connected, connect_url when credentials missing). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status inspection rather than authentication 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?

The description implies usage: use this tool to check connection status. It explains what to expect in different scenarios, which guides when to call it (e.g., to verify setup). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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