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

The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations: authenticated:true with empty pending arrays, connect_url for the toolkit, and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This is useful edge-behavior disclosure and does not contradict the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: one opening sentence states the primary purpose, and the second details the principal edge cases. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.

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 has zero parameters, no output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description covers the main success and missing-credential cases well. It could further explain partial connection states or the exact structure of pendingUrls, but this is sufficient for a simple no-parameter status tool.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively complete and no parameter documentation burden falls on the description. It appropriately does not try to explain non-existent inputs.

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 identifies the tool's action and scope: it 'Returns connection status and URLs' and explains the two main outcomes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status inspection rather than performing an auth flow.

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 gives meaningful conditional context ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...'), which implies checking connection status before taking action. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a sibling like 'authenticate', so usage guidance is only implied, not fully explicit.

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