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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the response shape for both success (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and failure (connect_url, per-install URLs) cases, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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, and each sentence adds essential information about conditional behavior. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to parse.

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's simplicity, lack of parameters, and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the two main scenarios. It covers the key return fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs) and leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

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 the schema provides no constraints. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed and focuses on output behavior. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description fully avoids needing parameter explanations.

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 a specific action: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also specifies the output under different conditions (all connected vs missing credentials), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate.

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 clearly implies usage as a connection status check by describing what it returns and when. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context (sibling tools like authenticate) makes it evident when to use this tool. No explicit exclusions are needed for such a straightforward read-only status tool.

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