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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the exact output format (authenticated:true and empty pending[]) and what happens when credentials are missing (connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable expectations without 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and every sentence adds information about behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it extremely concise and effective.

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 is complete. It explains the two possible outcomes and the URLs involved, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect and when to call it. No additional context is needed.

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 baseline is 4 because there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. No additional semantic value is required beyond what the schema provides, which is nothing.

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, and explicitly describes two key scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than authentication actions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (to check connection status) and provides context about what happens in different states, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The behavior is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call this tool, though it lacks a direct 'use this instead of X' statement.

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