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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact behavioral output (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the generic 'returns state' assumption. No contradictions or missing disclosures are evident.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb 'Returns' and then lists the specific informational components in a structured manner. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple, read-only info tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description fully captures the purpose and return value. It tells the agent exactly what to expect, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is fully self-explanatory with no properties to describe. The description does not attempt to introduce parameters, and since there are none, the baseline of 4 applies. It would be inappropriate to score higher because there's nothing to add beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly enumerates the exact contents of the toolkit state: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which deal with authentication and connection setup, not state inspection.

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: whenever you need an overview of the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs and their statuses. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use connect to establish a new connection' — it only describes what it returns.

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