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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about the return states (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), but it doesn't disclose details like whether this incurs network calls or rate limits. Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). The second sentence adds needed detail about the two states, making it concise and well-structured, with no redundant information.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with clear annotationso, the description covers the key behaviors (authenticated when all providers connected, or URLs when missing). It doesn't explain the format of the return, but without a detailed output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple status check.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no property definitions. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (status and URLs), compensating for the lack of parameters. With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further.

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 it returns connection status and URLs, and explains the difference between connected and missing-credential states. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the description's specific behavior (returning status and URLs) is distinct from actions like authenticate.

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 this tool is for checking connection status, and hints at a scenario (when credentials are missing) where it returns URLs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals are clear given the sibling names and the tool's read-only nature.

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