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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: conditional return states, the authenticated flag, pending array, and URL field semantics. It does not contradict the annotations, and it provides a meaningful picture of what changes are not made and what outcomes can be expected.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then explain the key conditional outputs. Every clause adds meaningful detail, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it covers the main success state and the missing-credentials state, including URL fields and authenticated flags. It is reasonably complete for a zero-parameter status/checking tool, though it could mention partial credential states or error conditions explicitly for full completeness.

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 input schema is empty and there is no parameter complexity to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain nonexistent parameters and the schema fully covers this axis.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, using the specific verb 'Returns' with a defined resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by focusing on status discovery, not performing authentication or marketplace actions.

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: it describes what happens in different connection states, such as returning authenticated:true when all providers are connected and connect_url when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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