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 description's safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact response fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and behavior in different scenarios, going beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides distinct, useful information. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no parameters and an openWorldHint=false, the description covers the main expected response states (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not explicitly describe partial connection scenarios. Still, it is sufficient for most use cases and complements the annotations well.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter usage; it correctly focuses on the response behavior instead.

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, with specific behavioral examples for both connected and missing credential scenarios. It's a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' which handles the authentication flow.

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 when to use it (to check connection state or retrieve connect URLs) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It provides clear context for the success and failure states, but lacks an explicit 'use this when...' statement.

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