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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior of the return value (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs connect_url), which is not in the annotations. No 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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential detail: the first states what it returns, the second explains conditional variations. No wasted words.

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 has no parameters, an output schema is not needed, and annotations cover safety. The description fully explains the tool's output behavior, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect. The complexity is low, so the description is sufficient.

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)SkipSchema coverage is 100% (%) as there are no properties, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. With no params, baseline is 4. The description additionally clarifies the meaning of the return values, which helps in understanding the tool's behavior without parameters.

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 specific details on output states (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when connect_url is provided. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and 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 implies usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus authenticate or other siblings. It provides context on when different outputs appear (all providers connected vs credentials missing), but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives.

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