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

The description aligns with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and transparently indicates that it returns a snapshot of the current state. It does not mention error behavior or edge cases, but for a simple read-only query, this 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently enumerates the return contents. It is concise and to the point, with no unnecessary verbiage.

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 input schema, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what information is returned, which is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose and 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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The description fully covers the tool's behavior without needing parameter details. Schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 purpose: it returns the current toolkit state, listing specific aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a precise, verb-driven description that distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate'.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly a read-only status query tool, there is no guidance on when to prefer it (e.g., before connecting) or when not to use it. This is a common gap.

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