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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about conditional output—returning authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url when credentials are missing—which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The conditional breakdown is compact and immediately useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining return values, and it does cover the primary states: fully connected versus missing credentials. It does not mention possible partial-connection states or exact response structure, but for a parameterless read-only tool this is adequately 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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly handles a parameterless tool without introducing irrelevant parameter information.

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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by reporting status 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 conditional usage context: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true, and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a status-checking tool.

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