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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, so the bar for added value is met by describing return payloads: authenticated:true with empty pending[], and connect_url when credentials are missing. This adds behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it does not fully 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information about return values. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains key return values (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). However, it does not explicitly describe the partial-connection state (e.g., some providers pending), leaving a small but meaningful gap in complete status enumeration.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the auth action. The conditional details about authenticated:true and connect_url make the purpose unambiguous.

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 on expected behavior in different credential states, implying when to use this tool to check connectivity rather than to perform actions like 'authenticate'. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the conditional states give practical usage context.

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