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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the return behavior in different scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), including the structure of the response (authenticated, pending, connect_url). This goes beyond what annotations provide and gives actionable insight into expected outputs.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and provides the key behavioral variations in the second. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition. This is a model of efficient communication.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the robust annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the two main response states, but it does not address partial connectivity scenarios (e.g., some providers connected, others not). However, such details are likely inferred from the 'all providers' phrasing. The description sufficiently equips the agent to understand the tool's output for typical use cases.

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 the baseline for this dimension is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. The complete schema coverage of 100% is trivial because the schema is empty, and the description appropriately focuses on the response behavior.

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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate (which presumably performs authentication) and show_version (which reports version). The two response states are explicitly described, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implicitly indicates this is a read-only status check, which naturally suggests it is for verifying connectivity before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., authenticate). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context for typical usage.

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