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 description does not need to restate these. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). However, it does not disclose other aspects like latency or that the state might reflect a cached view, but for this simple read-only tool the transparency is adequate.

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 front-loads the purpose and enumerates the key data points. Every element earns its place: it states the verb (returns), the resource (current toolkit state), and the specific content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). There is zero waste.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, but clear annotations), the description is fully sufficient. It covers the necessary context: what the tool does and what it returns. A slightly higher score might require an indication of how to interpret the connection status or what 'how many catalog tools' means, but for this scope the description is 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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties). The description clarifies that the tool returns a state overview, which is the only semantic needed. Since no parameters exist, the description fulfills the requirement and adds meaning beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which handle actions rather than state inspection.

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 use for checking the current state of the toolkit, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like show_version (which likely shows version info) or marketplace (which may list available MCPs). It does not provide exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear enough for a simple informational tool.

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