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

The description transparently discloses behavior by explaining different response outcomes based on whether all providers are connected or credentials are missing. It mentions specific fields like 'authenticated:true' and 'connect_url', providing insight into expected output without revealing internal logic.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the essential information. It avoids unnecessary detail while still explaining conditional outcomes, which is appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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 lack of parameters and output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and under what conditions. It provides enough context for a user to understand the tool's function, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to call it.

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 there is no ambiguity or missing parameter documentation. The schema coverage is complete (empty properties), making parameter semantics a non-issue.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, which is a specific and understandable purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on status retrieval rather than 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 implies usage when one wants to check connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or typical scenarios, such as 'use after authentication' or 'use to verify connectivity before other operations.'

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