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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by describing the two output scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending, and connect_url when missing), which provides behavioral insight beyond 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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then providing conditional details. No redundant information, every phrase contributes.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two primary states (all connected and missing credentials) sufficiently. It could mention the exact structure of connect_url, but it's not necessary for basic usage. Annotations cover safety, so this is adequate.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description focuses on behavior, which is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Returns connection status and URLs', identifying the tool as a status retrieval function. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate which performs actions, and show_version which reports version info.

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?

Provides conditional behavior based on connection state ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...'), giving context on when it returns different outputs. However, it doesn't explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as stating 'use this to check status before authenticating'.

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