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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context by detailing the conditional return behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 long, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and conditional details in the second. Every clause adds information, with no redundant wording or padding. This is exemplary conciseness.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the two main scenarios well: fully connected and missing credentials. It does not explicitly mention partial connection states, but this is somewhat implied by the presence of pending[]. The annotation set is solid, and the description adds enough behavioral detail to be considered complete for most uses.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per baseline guidance, 0 params merits a score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics, and its explanation of behavior compensates for the lack of parameter-related detail.

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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which handles authentication) and 'show_version' (which shows version info). The description meaningfully differentiates the tool's role.

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 context: to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It provides clear context about what to expect in different states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'authenticate'.

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