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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior (authenticated:true vs connect_url). However, it does not detail response format or error cases beyond missing credentials, and it doesn't mention if it makes network calls that could have rate limits.

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, each with a clear purpose. The first states the general function, the second explains conditional behavior. No wasted words, early mention of the primary output ('authenticated:true'). Well-structured and concise.

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 no parameters and a simple read-only operation, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it returns (status and URLs) and when it returns what (connected vs missing credentials). It also mentions per-install URLs, which is a key detail. It could mention whether it returns error codes or if it includes provider-specific details, but overall it's adequate for a parameterless status tool.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining the conditions that affect the output (when all providers are connected vs missing credentials). With 0 parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it effectively explains the tool's two states.

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 what the tool does: it returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and marketplace by focusing on checking status rather than initiating auth. However, it could be more specific about the exact response structure (e.g., fields beyond authenticated and pending).

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 it is used to check whether all providers are connected and to get connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate for actually initiating connection. It gives context but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between connect and authenticate.

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