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

Annotations already communicate safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful conditional behavior: what is returned when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, including authenticated and pending fields.

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 main purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. No redundant wording or elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It describes both primary states and the key returned data fields, allowing an agent to understand what to expect when invoking the tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds value by explaining the return state, which is the relevant semantic content for this tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource (connection status and URLs). It also differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate by being a status read 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 description provides clear context for when to call the tool: to check connection status and obtain URLs in cases where credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is implied naturally.

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