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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about conditional responses: when authenticated returns 'true' with empty pending[], when credentials are missing returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond what annotations state.

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 exactly two sentences: the first gives the main purpose, the second explains conditional outcomes. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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, read-only status tool, the description fully covers expected behavior in both normal and missing-credential cases. It mentions the key fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) and no output schema exists, so this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema is fully covered by default. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details; the baseline for 0 params is 4 because there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema shows.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action, and the conditional outcomes add precision.

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 about when to use it: to check connection status and retrieve URLs. It also explains the two states (all connected vs missing credentials) and what the output will be, which guides usage. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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