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 valuable behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the exact structure of the response (authenticated flag, pending array, connection URLs) and how it varies based on provider connectivity. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, without any contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the core function and then elaborate on the two key cases. There is no redundant wording, and the most important information (returns status and URLs) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers its behavior. It explains both possible outcomes and the data returned, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to infer. The annotations complement the description to make it 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 description does not need to explain parameter meaning. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4; the description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed.

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 action: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also details the two distinct output states ('authenticated:true' with empty 'pending[]' vs missing credentials returning 'connect_url'), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'.

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 conditional scenarios ('When all providers are connected' vs 'When credentials are missing'), giving clear guidance on when the tool produces which output. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'authenticate' or mention when to prefer this over other status-related tools, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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