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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: it explains conditional return results (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, versus connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing), giving the agent a clearer picture of runtime behavior.

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 purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') then elaborating on two key conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

The description covers the all-connected case and the missing-credentials case, but does not explicitly address partial connectivity or other edge states. Since there is no output schema, this leaves some room for ambiguity, though the tool is simple enough that the provided detail is mostly 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 baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior; there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 states 'Returns connection status and URLs' which is a specific verb and resource, and it clearly explains two distinct return states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which would perform a connection action rather than report status.

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 this tool is for checking connection status, not performing authentication, but it does not explicitly say 'use this when' or name alternatives. It provides clear functional context without exclusions or explicit comparison to similar tools like authenticate.

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