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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific state fields returned, but no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or freshness of the data.

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, well-ordered sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and enumerates the key output contents efficiently.

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 read-only info tool, the description is complete: it lists the installed MCPs, connection statuses, and associated accounts, covering the expected return content. No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient clarity without needing extra detail.

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 no required fields, so there is no parameter semantics to elaborate. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema and context fully cover the absence of parameters; description adds no conflicting or missing details.

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 uses the verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource: the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, linked accounts, and tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as show_version and 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 purpose implies use whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit's installed integrations and connection status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer, though the scope is fairly intuitive.

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