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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond these: it specifies the response for two distinct states (all connected vs. missing credentials), including specific fields like authenticated:true and empty pending[], and the connect_url attribute. This fully covers the tool's behavior.

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 compact: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and the second adds conditional details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary information: what it returns and the two key states. Combined with annotations that handle safety and idempotency, the description is complete and well-rounded.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead focuses on output behavior, 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb 'returns' and a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by focusing on status/URLs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It implies when to use this tool (to check connection status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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