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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by specifying the two possible return states (authenticated:true with empty pending, or connect_url). This extra detail helps the agent understand what to expect beyond the annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every sentence provides necessary detail without fluff.

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?

With no parameters Recognized and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior for both connection states. It is complete for a status-checking tool with no 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 parametersas shown in the input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional info is needed.

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, with specific behaviors for connected vs. missing credentials. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace by focusing solely on status checking.

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 for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., authenticate). It gives context on the two possible outcomes but no direct guidance on when to choose this over siblings.

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