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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds concrete return behavior (authenticated state, pending[], connect_url) that goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete scenarios. No redundant words or restating of the name.

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 low complexity and strong annotations, the description covers the main return scenarios. However, it does not mention what happens when some providers are connected and others are missing, which is a plausible edge case for a status tool.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to add. The description contributes no parameter semantics, but the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which performs an action. The two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) make the 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?

Provides clear context by describing when it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs when it returns connect_url, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or exclude cases like partial connectivity.

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