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 behavioral context about response states (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or additional behaviors beyond what annotations cover, but given the annotations are comprehensive, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's function and key response variations without any fluff.

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 simple annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the two main response states (all connected vs missing credentials) and mentions the URLs returned. It could potentially mention the exact structure of the response, but 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining what the response will contain in different scenarios, which is the main semantic content for a parameterless tool. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's focus on output states is appropriate and earns a 4.

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' by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication. It specifies the resource (connection) and the action (returns status/URLs), which is clear and specific.

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 usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It provides context on what the response looks like in different states, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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