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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable return-state details: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This exceeds the annotation-only information, though partial-connection states are not described.

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?

Two sentences deliver meaningful, front-loaded information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the key behavioral branches. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return behavior, and it does so for the primary scenarios. It is complete enough for a zero-parameter status tool, though a brief note about partial connection states would make it fully exhaustive.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly focuses on output behavior instead of parameter details.

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 and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like authenticate or show_version by focusing on connection state and URL output. The conditional details further clarify the exact purpose.

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 use for checking connection status and provides clear contextual conditions: all providers connected vs. credentials missing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the purpose distinctive enough.

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