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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which align with a safe status query. The description adds useful behavioral context: the exact meaning of authenticated:true and the presence of pending[], plus the per-install URLs. No contradiction found.

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 that front-load the core purpose, then explain the two key states. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 status tool with clear annotations and a description that covers the two possible outcomes, the description is complete. It also gives enough context to distinguish from authentication and connection setup actions. No output schema, but the description covers the returned fields adequately.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description provides rich semantic detail about the output and conditions, which is the relevant 'parameter' here. With no params, the baseline is high, and the description exceeds expectations by explaining the response semantics.

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, with specific conditions for when authenticated:true and empty pending[] are returned, and when connect_url is provided. It distinguishes this from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status/reporting rather than action or version info.

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 this tool: to check connection status and obtain URLs for setup. It provides clear context on what the output means (authenticated vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given the simple status-query nature, this is acceptable.

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