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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by explaining the two possible return states: 'authenticated:true with empty pending[]' and 'connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is concise (two sentences), clearly structured, and free of redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior without extraneous details.

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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the expected return values and scenarios. It covers both the success and failure states, making it complete for typical usage, though it might not detail the exact JSON structure or error codes.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when coverage is high and no additional explanation is required.

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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource (returns connection status) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by focusing on connectivity state.

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 context on when to use this tool (to check connection status and obtain URLs) without explicitly mentioning alternatives. It implies usage for diagnosing connectivity, but does not explicitly exclude other tools, so it lacks a direct 'use this instead' statement.

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