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 covered. The description adds behavioral context about the two possible states (authenticated vs missing credentials) and what URLs are returned. It does not describe any side effects or additional behaviors, but with annotations covering the safety aspects, this is adequate.

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 main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 annotations cover the safety profile, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two possible states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of the URLs or the structure of the response, but for a simple status tool, this is sufficient. The sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info might overlap, but the description is adequate for the tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description explains the output behavior in different states, which is the main semantic content. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it provides useful context about the return values. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 between the authenticated state and missing credentials state. It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the output (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is clear.

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), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info, some guidance on when to use connect vs authenticate would be helpful, but the context is reasonably clear.

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