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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned information (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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-formed sentence that lists the key output categories without any filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides concrete details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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. The description fully covers what the tool returns, and given the absence of parameters or complex behavior, it is complete. No additional details are necessary for an agent to understand or invoke it correctly.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, specifying exactly what it includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which focus on other actions.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For a simple read-only info tool, this is a minor gap; the purpose is clear enough that an agent would likely infer usage, but no when/when-not guidance is given.

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