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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the two return states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and explaining that missing credentials yields both a toolkit-level connect_url and per-install URLs, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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 with front-loaded purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and no redundancy. Each sentence carries critical information about conditional behavior, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios (all connected and missing credentials) and leverages annotations for safety. It could explicitly mention partial connectivity states, but the given description is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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 no parameters (schema properties are empty), so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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, with specific conditions for when authenticated:true and empty pending[] are returned versus when connect_url and per-install URLs are provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which would handle the actual authentication flow.

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 for checking connection status and hints that missing credentials should prompt authentication via connect_url, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus siblings like authenticate or provide exclusions. The conditional outputs give context but not direct alternative guidance.

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