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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering side effects. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned, making the behavior transparent. While it doesn't explicitly say 'does not modify state,' the 'returns' phrasing combined with annotations provides sufficient transparency. Minor credit for not over-explaining.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and clearly enumerates the key elements. There is no fluff, redundancy, or excessive detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse, making it ideal for quick understanding by an agent.

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?

The description provides a good overview of the output content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without an output schema. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., whether it's a list, nested objects, or a summary), but this is not critical for a simple read-only tool. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not mention parameters because none exist. Since schema coverage is complete (100%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, and no additional parameter information is needed.

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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state and lists the specific components included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). The verb 'Returns' is precise, and the resource is well defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'report_bug'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a straightforward getter, but there is no guidance on scenarios (e.g., 'Use this to check status before connecting') or comparisons with sibling tools. The purpose is clear, but the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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