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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying conditional response structures: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond annotation-only information.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by two conditional clarifications. Each sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the key states an agent needs to interpret results: full connection, pending providers, and missing-credential URLs. No critical behavior is omitted, and annotations confirm non-mutating, idempotent behavior.

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 the schema carries no parameter burden. With no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description does not claim any parameter behavior. It simply focuses on the return states, 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 is specific: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only status query and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on checking connection state rather than initiating authentication.

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?

Description explains the two concrete outcomes (all connected vs. missing credentials), giving context for when the tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this for status checks.

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