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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable detail about the two possible return states—authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url for missing credentials—which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause contributes useful conditional detail.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description provides enough context about expected return states. It does not fully define pending[] or per-install URLs, but the core behavior is adequately covered without an output schema.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than initiating connections.

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 conditional behavior ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') implies the tool is used to check connection state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus authenticate or other alternatives. The intended usage is clear from context but not stated as a recommendation.

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