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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what state is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned data in a compact list. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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, read-only state inspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names all return categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). Given the simplicity and the absence of inputs, no additional caveats or edge-case documentation are necessary.

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 schema coverage is 100% (an empty object), so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description's enumeration of the returned state compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts connected, and catalog tool counts. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like pagseguro_orders_get or show_version.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (anytime you need an overview of toolkit state), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternative tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it falls short of the 5 bar but is still not misleading.

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