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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it specifies response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and behavior in different states. This exceeds the annotation-only information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 is a simple status checker with no parameters and annotations already declare safety traits, the description covers the key states and response elements. It does not list all possible response fields exhaustively, but for this simplicity it is sufficiently complete.

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 description carries no parameter burden. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description explains the return states sufficiently, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameters exist to explain.

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 states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about the conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates connection) and show_version (which shows version info).

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 explains the two states (connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of authenticate or other tools. However, given the readOnlyHint and simple nature, the usage context is implied for checking connection status.

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