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

Despite annotations already indicating readOnly/idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it discloses the conditional return values based on authentication statehare. It does not contradict annotations and explains exactly what the tool will return, which exceeds the baseline.

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, two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and explains the two possible outcomes efficiently. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior, including the two distinct return scenarios. It doesn't elaborate on potential errors or side effects (but none expected due to readOnlyHint). Sibling tools like 'authenticate' might be relevant, but the context is sufficient for basic usage. A perfect score would require more explicit guidance on edge cases, but this is close.

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 zero parameters)Skip, and schema description coverage is 100% (no properties). Per the rule, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't add parameter info (none needed). No issues.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'connection status and URLs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact output (authenticated:true and empty pending[] when connected, connect_url when missing credentials). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 what the tool does and under what conditions it returns certain results, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate', although the purpose is inferred. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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