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 well-covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details about the return states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url presence) and explains the difference between missing credentials scenarios (toolkit-level vs per-install URLs). These details go beyond the annotations and help set expectations.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, no repetition or filler.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: the two possible return states and the distinction between connect URLs. It lacks explicit details about the structure of the 'pending' array or the format of URLs, but that is likely minor for a status-check tool. Annotations cover safety.

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)Skip, so there are no parameters to document. The description is not required to add parameter semantics, but it does clarify what the output will contain based on the connection state, which is helpful for an agent interpreting the results. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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 the tool's purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It specifies the exact conditions for different return states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, that initiates connections, or toolkit_info, that provides general toolkit information.

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: when you need to check connection status or obtain connect URLs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for status checks rather than for initiating connections (sibling authenticate).

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