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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining conditional outcomes: when all providers are connected, authenticated:true with empty pending[], and when credentials are missing, connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences, fully front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause contributes meaningful information about return values and behaviors. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple status/URL check, the description covers the essential scenarios effectively: the all-connected case and the missing-credentials case. It provides enough detail for an agent to correctly infer the tool's behavior and responses.

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 no input schema requirements, so the parameter dimension is trivially satisfied. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, earning a baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on status retrieval, while authenticate likely handles the actual connection 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 the tool—when wanting to check connection status and pending URLs—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like authenticate. The intended context is clear enough, but no exclusion guidance is provided.

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