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

Read-only and idempotent annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds useful conditional behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. It does not cover every partial-connectivity state, but adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the main return values and key states. However, it does not explicitly describe partial-connectivity cases or the exact structure of pending[] and per-install URLs, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than inputs, and the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs', a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling 'authenticate' by presenting this as a status-reporting tool rather than an authentication action.

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 conditional output descriptions imply this is used to check whether providers are connected, but it never explicitly says when to use connect versus authenticate or other siblings. There are no direct exclusions or alternative tool references.

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