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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the two states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the response contains (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url). This goes beyond the annotations by describing the conditional behavior.

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 main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the tool's behavior without redundancy.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the two possible states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of the URLs or the exact structure of the response, but for a status-check tool with no parameters, this is adequate.

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 schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and under what conditions, which is the relevant semantic information for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter case.

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, and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication or showing version info. It could be more explicit about the resource being 'connection status' but the verb 'returns' and the specific details make it clear.

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 status and get URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it could have noted that authenticate is for initiating connections, but the context is reasonably clear.

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