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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the two conditional response patterns: authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url with per-install URLs. This provides useful state-dependent transparency beyond the raw annotations.

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 important information. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or reference to structured fields that the schema already conveys, making it an excellent example of concise yet informative documentation.

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 that this is a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational contexts: all providers connected vs. credentials missing. It identifies the critical returned fields and URLs, so the agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its result without further assistance.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4; the description correctly focuses instead on return behavior and conditions rather than adding irrelevant parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs') and goes on to define the expected output in both connected and missing-credential states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate by framing it as a read-only status check rather than a setup/authentication action.

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 clearly implies when this tool should be used: to check connection state and retrieve URLs when credentials may be absent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'do not use when...', so it falls just short of full explicit exclusionary guidance, but the context is strong and unambiguous.

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