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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by detailing the output structure (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url) and the two states, going 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?

Two sentences front-load the main function and then elaborate on the two scenarios. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema or annotations.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the return behavior in both states, including the key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It is self-sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on response behavior rather than parameter details, 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 'Returns connection status and URLs' and specifies two distinct response scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), making the purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by explicitly being a status check, not an authentication action.

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 usage (check connection status) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as using 'authenticate' for credential setup. It lacks exclusions or recommended sequencing, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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