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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it reports authenticated status, empty pending[], and provides connect_url when credentials are missing. This is sufficient context for a safe status-checking tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful behavior. There is no redundant boilerplate or repetition of annotations.

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, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description fully captures the relevant behavior: return values in both success and incomplete-credential scenarios. No output schema exists, but the description conveys the key return semantics well.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, as there is nothing to document. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also outlines conditional outcomes (authenticated:true vs pending[]), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'authenticate', but the read-only status-check role is evident.

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 useful context by explaining what happens when providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, which implies when a user would call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like 'authenticate' or mention any exclusions.

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