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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the two return states (authenticated true vs connect_url) and per-install URLs, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then detailing conditional returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: what returns when all providers are connected and what happens when credentials are missing. It is adequate for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it doesn't detail URL formats or error cases.

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 is fully covered (100%). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters, and the two-sentence explanation of behavior is sufficient.

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 returns connection status and URLs, and differentiates from siblings by specifying two distinct outcomes (authenticated vs missing credentials). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource, distinguishing it from 'authenticate' or other tools.

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 for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'authenticate'. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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