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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying return behavior under different conditions (e.g., returns authenticated:true when connected, returns connect_url when credentials missing). This helps the agent predict outputs without an output schema.

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 uses conditional clauses to efficiently convey behavior. No redundant information or filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers two key states (all providers connected and credentials missing), which are likely common cases. However, it does not explicitly address partial connection states or provide details on the exact structure of the URLs. Given the simplicity and existing annotations, this is still reasonably complete.

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, and the input schema is empty. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than authentication actions. The conditional details ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...') further clarify the behavior.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to check connection status or get URLs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'authenticate'. It could be improved by stating that this is for status queries, not for initiating connections.

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