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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable details about response structure (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) that go beyond annotations, enhancing transparency without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output and conditions, making it a model of conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains all possible response scenarios and requires no additional context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details. With no params, the baseline is 4, but the description adds value by explaining output states, earning a 5.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval, and it provides conditional details that fully define its scope.

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 context by explaining behavior in different states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call this tool.

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