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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the conditional return for fully connected vs. missing credentials, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not cover all edge cases (e.g., partial connections), but the provided scenarios are helpful.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences that are direct and information-dense. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main purpose and conditional behaviors, which is all an agent needs to decide when to invoke it 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, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional information is 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status'). It also differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing authentication.

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 use the tool (checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient though, especially given the sibling tool 'authenticate' suggests a clear division of responsibilities.

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