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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non‑destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing conditional response content (e.g., 'empty pending[]' vs. 'connect_url') which helps predict behavior without requiring a call. Slightly more detail (e.g., whether authentication is required) would push it higher, but it adds good context.

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 uses specific, concrete details without unnecessary fluff. Every clause contributes value, making it concise yet highly informative.

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 nearly complete. It covers the main return cases and important fields, though it could mention error scenarios or the exact format of URLs. Given the low complexity, it does not need much more.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description meaningfully explains what the tool returns without needing to clarify inputs, fully compensating for the empty parameter list.

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 that the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs,' using a specific verb and resource. It also hints at distinguishing behavior (e.g., 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs. 'returns connect_url'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to check connection status and obtain URLs) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the purpose is self-contained and siblings are quite distinct, the absence of exclusions is acceptable, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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