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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is context beyond the annotations. It does not introduce any contradictory behavior, so it scores high.

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, information-dense sentence that lists exactly what the tool returns. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration. It is perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a read-only info tool with no parameters, this is complete and actionable. No additional context (pagination, formats) is needed for basic usage.

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 the schema provides full coverage (100%). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-related details, but none are needed. It appropriately sticks to describing the output rather than trying to document non-existent inputs.

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 specifies the action (returns) and the resource (current toolkit state), and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is distinct from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which are action-oriented, whereas this is a state-inspection tool.

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 toolkit status (e.g., before connecting or authenticating), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'. It lacks clear exclusions or alternative guidance, earning a mid score.

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