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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which gives the agent confidence that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior: when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing, and that it returns specific URLs in each case. This exceeds the annotations but doesn't disclose details like any internal caching or potential side effects, though given its read-only nature, this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It uses two sentences to cover the main behavior, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function. No fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, or nested objects, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, the two key scenarios, and the meaning of fields like 'authenticated' and 'pending[]'. It could mention the exact structure or format of connect_url and per-install URLs, but for a status check tool, this is largely complete.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (i.e., the schema provides no parameters to describe). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain any. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema on its own is sufficient for parameter semantics, and the description adds no parameter info, but there are none to explain.

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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It identifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by describing what the status output looks like and its relationship to credentials, though it could more explicitly differentiate from 'toolkit_info' or 'show_version'.

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 retrieve URLs, especially when credentials are missing or all providers are connected). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'authenticate' for establishing connections. The guidance is functional but not explicit.

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