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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent safe behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about conditional returns: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], otherwise returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies expected responses.

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 concise sentences, no redundant phrasing. Front-loaded with the core action and immediately explains the two possible outcomes.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains both return scenarios but could specify what 'pending[]' represents or mention provider names, but that is minor. Adequate for a status-check tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to explain parameters. It adequately conveys that no inputs are required.

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-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which establishes auth) and 'show_version' (which returns version info).

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?

Implied usage: use to check connection status. It describes two return states, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over 'authenticate' or other alternatives. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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