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 that it returns connection status and account info, which adds context about the kind of data returned, but doesn't go beyond what annotations imply. Without output schema, it moves to the description, but it still lacks detail on potential latency or whether it triggers network calls.

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 sentence that is concise yet comprehensive, enumerating exactly what data is returned. Every phrase contributes value without fluff.

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 zero parameters and only annotations describing safety, the description effectively explains what the tool returns. It's a simple state inspection tool, so the description is sufficient. However, it could mention if the state is live or cached, but that's a minor gap given the simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, there is nothing to explain, and the schema coverage is 100%. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameters exist, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.

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 returns toolkit state, enumerating specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which focus on actions rather than 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 it's for inspecting the current toolkit state, which is clear given the context of siblings like connect and authenticate. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the read-only nature and clarity of purpose make the intended usage obvious.

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