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 meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the difference between fully connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and missing credentials (connect_url, per-install URLs), which is not evident from annotations alone. This enriches the agent's understanding of expected outcomes.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the first sentence states the general function, the second explains conditional outputs. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the two most relevant scenarios: fully connected and missing credentials. It provides the key output fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). A minor gap is the lack of mention of partial connection states, but overall the description is complete enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so the description bears no responsibility to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately describes the tool's functionality without needing to compensate for parameter documentation.

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 then elaborates on two distinct outcomes (all connected vs. missing credentials), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate. The purpose is unambiguous and action-focused.

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 use for checking connection status, and the conditional output (authenticated:true vs. connect_url) gives context for when it would be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like authenticate, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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