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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the conditional output (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing). It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond them by detailing the response variations, which helps the agent anticipate results.

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 core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by conditional details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main behaviors: it explains the output when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. However, it does not address partial connection states or define what 'pending' contains, leaving some ambiguity. For a simple tool, this is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description needs no parameter explanation. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no param-specific info, but none is required. It focuses on output behavior, which is appropriate.

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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the verb ('Returns') and the resource (connection status and URLs), and provides conditional outcomes based on connection state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' (which performs authentication) and 'show_version' (which shows version 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 when to use this tool: when needing connection status and URLs. It describes two scenarios (all providers connected vs. credentials missing) and the associated returns, which gives context for expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly state alternative tools or when NOT to use it, though sibling names like 'authenticate' suggest a complementary role.

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