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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Returns' is consistent and adds value by detailing the specific state information provided. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not add further behavioral detail like side effects or latency.

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 concisely lists the key aspects of the toolkit state without fluff or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 status tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns. It could benefit from an explicit note about when to call it, but the current description is adequate given the tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 explicitly enumerates the returned content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which likely focuses on version information.

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 the tool is for inspecting the current toolkit state but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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