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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful response behavior: authenticated:true, empty pending[], and connect_url/per-install URLs depending on credential state. This is strong behavioral detail for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it does not cover partial-connection states.

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, no filler, and information is front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains conditional outputs. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers the main return shape and the key condition branches (all connected vs. missing credentials), which is sufficient for a simple status tool with no input schema and no output schema. It leaves partial-connection behavior unspecified, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already exhaustively documents the input surface. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but that is unnecessary; the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), making the tool's core function unambiguous. It also describes expected response states, clearly distinguishing this status-checking tool from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, which likely performs authentication actions.

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 conditional contexts: use this tool to check all-providers-connected status or to retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the conditions imply the appropriate usage window.

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