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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: what happens when credentials are missing (returns connect_url) and distinguishes between toolkit and per-install URLs. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful usage context.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides actionable information without 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?

For a stateless status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential return behavior (connection status and URLs) and scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It does not detail the exact response shape, but that is acceptable given the simplicity and the readOnlyHint.

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 per the rubric baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and no parameter-specific information is missing.

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 specific examples of states (authenticated:true when all connected, empty pending[]). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which performs actions.

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 usage as a status check, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is clear from context that this is a read-only connectivity check, but no explicit exclusions or alternative references (e.g., 'use authenticate to initiate connection') are given.

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