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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes further by specifying the exact response conditions: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. No fluff or redundancy. The conditional structure is clear and efficient.

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?

As a simple, zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return values under all relevant conditions. It is complete for an agent to understand what to expect and how to interpret the response.

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, the schema provides full coverage trivially. The description inherently needs no parameter explanation. Baseline 4 applies because there is no parameter information to add, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent parameters.

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 returns connection status and URLs. It is distinct from siblings like authenticate, which presumably performs authentication. The verb 'Returns' plus the resource 'connection status and URLs' is specific and 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 implies when to use this tool: to check connection status and obtain URLs. It provides conditional behavior for all-connected versus missing-credentials cases, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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