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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining what the response looks like in different states (all connected vs. missing credentials), and clarifies the connect_url behavior for the toolkit and per-install URLs. This goes beyond what annotations convey. However, it doesn't specify the exact format of the response or possible error/exception behaviors.

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?

Two sentences, highly informative. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second explains the two key behavioral states. No wasted words, no redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it returns when connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and what it returns when credentials are missing (connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). Slight deduction for not explicitly describing the authenticated:false case outcome in terms of URL structure or alternative states. Overall, well-suited to its simple complexity.

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 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information since there are none. It uses the available textual space to describe behavior instead.

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 this tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the status check tool (vs. authenticate, marketplace, etc.). It could theoretically be more explicit about the tool name 'connect' mapping to checking connectivity, but the behavioral description is clear.

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: to check connection status and get URLs, with explicit behavior for connected vs. missing credentials states. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' is implicit. Slight deduction for not explicitly saying 'use this when you need to verify connectivity' as a usage directive.

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