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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context on return states: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 primary function, and every sentence contributes meaningful information about behavior. No superfluous content or repetition of the tool name/title.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two relevant return scenarios. It could be more complete by defining 'providers' or elaborating on per-install URLs, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return states rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, so no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication. The two-mode explanation adds further specificity.

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 and determining next steps (e.g., when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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