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 clear. The description adds value by explaining the two output states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url) and the per-install URLs, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 every sentence adds value. It explains the two states without redundancy. Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions for each state. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that this is a read-only operation, but annotations cover that. For a status-check tool, this is sufficient.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output behavior instead. It doesn't waste space on 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which likely initiates connection) and show_version/toolkit_info (which provide other metadata).

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. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate) makes the usage clear. A slight gap is not mentioning that this is a read-only status check, but that's covered by annotations.

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