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

The description aligns with the annotations: it returns state information without indicating any side effectschen. The annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which matches the read-only nature described. No contradictions, and the description is clear about what the tool does not mutate.

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, informational sentence that lists all the key points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It is concise yet complete, avoiding any verbosity while covering all relevant aspects.

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 parameterless read-only info tool, this description is fully adequate. It covers the scope of the returned information and implies no side effects. The annotation (readOnly) further supports completeness, and no additional details are needed.

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 no parameters (empty properties in the schema), so the description accurately covers all of them. There is nothing undocumented, and the description fully describes the output.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns: 'installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' This is precise and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 focuses on what the tool returns rather than when to use it. While it's implied to be used for checking the toolkit's state (e.g., after connecting MCPs), no explicit usage context or prerequisites are mentioned. Given the tool's simplicity and read-only nature, this is adequate but could be slightly improved.

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