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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond annotations by specifying the conditional output shape: authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are absent. This is valuable behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information about return behavior. 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?

For a zero-input, read-only status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains the two relevant response scenarios. It names the key fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and gives enough context for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%. With no params to explain, the description is not required to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description does not omit anything necessary.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then clarifies the two possible result states. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by defining this as a status/URL inspection operation, not an auth-flow trigger.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this tool when checking whether providers are connected or when you need connect URLs. The conditional behavior ('When credentials are missing...') implies when authentication setup is needed, though it does not explicitly name 'authenticate' as the alternative.

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