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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying what is returned in different connection states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs). This is useful context the annotations do not provide.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and followed by clear conditional branches. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with no parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the key states and field names (authenticated, pending, connect_url). However, it does not explicitly describe the partial-connection case (only 'all providers connected' vs. 'credentials missing'), and it omits the shape of pending[] in the missing-credentials branch. This minor gap prevents a 5.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 pairing that clearly states what the tool does. It further elaborates with conditional behaviors (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (performing auth) and toolkit_info (general 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 the tool is useful by describing the two scenarios (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), but it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives like authenticate. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage 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.