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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the specific types of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which the annotations do not cover. This extra detail helps the agent predict what the tool will report without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that lists all key information categories. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and covers all relevant aspects without padding. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.

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 tool is a read-only status reporter with no parameters, the description sufficiently covers the essential aspects: what it returns and what categories are included. It does not describe the format or structure of the returned data (e.g., whether it's a nested object), but the absence of an output schema means the agent relies on the description for that info. The listing of four specific categories compensates for the lack of schema, though the description could hint at the structure (e.g., list vs. object) to be fully 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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on what the tool returns. Since there are no params, the description's clear outline of the output fields (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) provides all necessary semantic context.

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's function: returning the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' that handle authentication flow.

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 explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it implies it should be used when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's configuration and connectivity. Without explicit exclusion of cases where other tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' would be more appropriate, it remains somewhat implicit but adequate for a status-check tool.

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