getConnectorStatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the specific facets returned—connection and verification state, token expiry, and re-authorization need—which tells the agent what signals to expect. It does not mention refresh behavior or failure modes, so it falls short of 5.

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 tight sentences: the first names the tool's scope, the second enumerates the return facets. Front-loaded with the resource, zero filler, and the parenthetical connector list earns its place by scoping the tool.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries the load well by describing the returned fields. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; minor gaps remain around result shape (e.g., per-connector error states) but not enough to mislead an agent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the auth status of all MCP connectors') and enumerates the connectors covered (GitHub, Linear, Sentry). An agent can immediately distinguish it from status siblings like getBridgeStatus or bridgeDoctor. No ambiguity about what is being reported.

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 the use case (checking connector authentication state) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as bridgeDoctor or getBridgeStatus, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the resource name alone, which meets the minimum viable bar but leaves routing to the agent.

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