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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the response states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing). This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not cover error conditions or additional edge cases.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently adds nuance about response states. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the responsibility of explaining return values. It covers key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and distinguishes states. However, it does not specify the exact structure or types, but for a simple status tool this is adequate. The annotations and zero-parameter schema reduce complexity.

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 the schema provides no parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and the description does not need to compensate. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate.

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 behavior for different states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status 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 implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. It provides context on what the response looks like in different scenarios, which helps the agent decide, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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