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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe and idempotent nature is covered. The description adds context about the content of the state (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools) but doesn't disclose any additional behaviors such as performance, caching, or potential delays. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 lists the key elements. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the expected return content sufficiently. It could mention whether the state is real-time or cached, or if it requires prior authentication, but given the low complexity and good annotations, this is complete enough.

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 no semantic burden. The description explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. This is above the baseline because the description helps the agent understand what to expect even without parameters.

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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are action-oriented.

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 when to use it: when you need an overview of the toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the clear scope makes the usage context apparent. Sibling names like authenticate and connect suggest alternative actions, but no explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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