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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state is exposed (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond what the annotations convey. This is exactly the kind of additional context that helps an agent understand what to expect. No contradiction with annotations; description aligns with read-only, idempotent behavior.

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?

One sentence, 20 words, front-loads the action verb 'Returns' and packs in all key details: toolkit state, MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. Every word earns its place; no fluff, no redundancy. Excellent example of a concise yet information-dense description.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the functional contract well. It explains what the tool returns in enough detail for an agent to decide when to call it. A small deduction because it doesn't mention the exact structure or format of the response (e.g., is it a list or map?), though the description's list of fields is reasonably complete for decision-making. The presence of sibling tools like show_version and authenticate suggests this tool is the primary state query, which is clear from the description.

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 0 parameters, the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description correctly doesn't invent parameters and instead focuses on the return value, which is the right call. For a parameterless tool, the description's job is simply not to add confusion, and it succeeds. Baseline 4 for 0 params, upgraded to 5 because the description effectively communicates the output semantics, which is the only thing to get right here.

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 the current toolkit state, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the level of detail (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it adequately from the sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 is the go-to tool for state/status queries, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like show_version or authenticate. It provides clear context on what information is returned but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool mentions, which would be useful given the toolkit context.

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