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

The description discloses the exact behavior: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, or connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This adds significant detail beyond the readOnly and idempotent 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, consisting of two sentences that clearly articulate the tool's function and conditional behavior. No unnecessary verbiage is present.

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?

The description fully explains the expected output for the two relevant scenarios, including details about toolkit and per-install URLs. It provides sufficient context for a simple read-only status check without an output schema.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The description does not add parameter-related meaning because none exist, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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, and explains the two possible outcomes. It is specific to checking connection status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 use for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on when it is appropriate to call this function.

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