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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful conditional details: when all providers are connected returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing returns connect_url plus per-install URLs. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: one sentence states the overall purpose, then two sentences describe the main conditional outputs. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the two primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and explains the return payloads meaningfully. Given the simple zero-parameter interface and no output schema, this is mostly complete. It does not explicitly describe a partial-connection state, but the provided conditions are sufficient for the intended status-check use case.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no meaningful schema information to supplement. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead of inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as connection status and URLs. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by describing this as a status retrieval operation rather than an authentication action.

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 clear context by explaining what results appear under different connection states, implying this tool is used for checking whether authentication is complete. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the behavioral conditions convey its diagnostic role well.

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