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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining the conditional response: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when fully connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's return states.

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 focused sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the key conditional behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no filler or 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?

This is a simple, parameterless status-check tool with strong annotations. The description covers the main return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs) and both meaningful states. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough detail for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not add irrelevant parameter information.

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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It goes further by specifying the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing), giving a precise scope. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which presumably performs authentication rather than reporting status.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: to check if all providers are connected, and to retrieve connection/authentication URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional behavior provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate.

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