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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses two concrete behaviors: all-connected returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], while missing credentials returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This adds meaningful conditional context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The conditional branches are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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-checking tool, the description covers the main success case and the missing-credentials case, specifying key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It could mention partial-connectivity behavior or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the low complexity.

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 the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description supports this by addressing only output/state behavior, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It further specifies two conditional outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url plus per-install URLs), clarifying the scope and distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, which perform auth instead of status reporting.

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 use when connection status or connection URLs are needed and details conditional responses, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over authenticate or states exclusions. It provides context but no direct alternative guidance.

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