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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral details about conditional outputs (authenticated:true vs connect_url) and per-install URLs, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like partial connectivity, limiting transparency slightly.

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 no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the conditional outcomes, efficiently covering all essential information in a compact manner.

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 the tool is simple (no params, no output schema) and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough. It explains the two main states (all connected vs missing credentials) and mentions per-install URLs, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description clarifies the output semantics, which is more valuable than parameter details. Thus, a baseline 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditions for when authenticated is true and when connect_url is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, but the resource (connection status) is specific enough.

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 when to use it (to check connection status or get connect URLs when credentials are missing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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