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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (connection status, accounts, catalog tools), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs meaningful details without fluff. It clearly states the action and the returned content, with no wasted 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 no output schema and no parameters, the description must convey the return shape. It does so thoroughly, detailing the components of the toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making the tool's behavior and outputs clear.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional information is required.

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 the current toolkit state, enumerating specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like connect or authenticate, which handle different actions.

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 usage when you need to inspect the toolkit state, which is distinct from other siblings. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is evident given the sibling names and the read-only nature.

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