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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return payloads: authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. This explains what the agent will receive, which goes beyond the annotation hints. It does not contradict any 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, with no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (0 params) and the presence of annotations detailing safety, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the response includes. While it does not detail the exact structure of pending[] or connect_url, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output without an output schema.

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 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add any parameter-specific information. The absence of parameters makes this dimension non-applicable beyond the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb (returns) with a clear resource (connection status and URLs). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiating authentication, and provides specific conditional behaviors (connected vs. missing credentials).

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 when to use it (when you need to check connection status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It notes different return conditions based on credential status, which gives context, but there is no direct guidance on 'use this instead of authenticate' or 'use this when you need a read-only status check.' Thus, it relies on implied usage.

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