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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds valuable context about the exact content of the return (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts) which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what 'state' means.

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 dense with relevant information, listing all the key components of the returned state. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any unnecessary words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the components of the return value sufficiently, and the annotations cover safety. It could arguably offer more detail on the format, but it is adequate.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter details, and the baseline is 4. The description compensates by clearly stating what the tool returns, effectively covering the absence of parameters.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which include authentication, connection, market, and reporting functions.

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 an informational tool to check the state of the toolkit, which is useful before connecting or using other tools. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus alternatives, though the sibling context makes it clear this is the state-inspection tool.

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