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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds conditional behavior (all providers connected vs missing credentials) and specifies the keys returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url), which enriches the behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, then details edge cases. Zero wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two relevant states and the return values. It is fully complete for an agent to know what to expect. Sibling differentiation is not explicit but the tool's purpose is clear.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline 4 for no-parameter tools, and the description provides context about the output based on state.

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: returning connection status and URLs. It explicitly differentiates from sibling 'authenticate' by indicating it provides status rather than performing authentication. The conditionality (all connected vs credentials missing) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage: the description indicates when this tool is relevant (checking connection status) but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like 'authenticate' or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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