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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond by disclosing the actual response structure—'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This adds valuable behavioral detail about conditional return values that annotations do not capture.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second elaborates on two specific conditional scenarios. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrasing or irrelevant 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?

For a read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the primary success case (all providers connected), the partial-failure case (missing credentials), and the resulting next-step URLs. Given the low complexity and robust annotations, there are no significant gaps in context.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully comprehensive (coverage 100%), and the description appropriately avoids adding unnecessary parameter information. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools is warrented, as there are no parameter semantics left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a specific resource, 'connection status and URLs', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing conditional outputs (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) that clearly define its scope as a status-checking endpoint, setting it apart from tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool by stating exactly what it returns ('connection status and URLs') and contrasting conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or provide 'use instead of' exclusions, though the context of tool discovery makes the usage context quite clear.

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