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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining conditional return states, including authenticated:true, empty pending[], and connect_url for missing credentials. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful non-obvious detail.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands on conditional behavior. Every sentence adds relevant information without 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, zero parameters, and helpful annotations, the description covers the main cases: all providers connected and missing credentials. It could be slightly more explicit about partial connectivity scenarios, but the information provided is sufficient for basic invocation and interpretation.

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 parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters. No additional param explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly defines the tool's output and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing an 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by describing two states: all providers connected vs. missing credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the behavior is well-scoped enough that a user can infer this is the status-checking tool.

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