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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those annotations: authenticated:true, empty pending[], and the distinction between toolkit-level and per-install connect URLs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds meaningful behavior. There is no repetition, filler, or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the main return states: all-connected and missing-credentials. It leaves minor ambiguity about partially connected states, but for a zero-input status tool this is sufficiently 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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. With 100% schema coverage trivially satisfied and no params to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on return behavior instead.

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," identifying both the action and the resource. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool "authenticate" by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than performing authentication.

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 clear contextual usage: it explains what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the conditional behavior gives strong implied guidance.

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