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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the exact content of the return (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which informs the agent of what to expect without needing an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action ('Returns') and clearly enumerates the data components. No unnecessary words or ambiguity.

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?

With no output schema and no params, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response. It lists all major categories of returned information, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when to call. It could slightly improve by noting that results reflect current state, but it's complete for typical use.

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 description needs no parameter explanation. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than 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 explicitly states the tool returns the toolkit state with a specific list of components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This verb+resource scope is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which imply 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 implies use for inspecting toolkit status, but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before connecting) or exclude alternatives. While siblings are action-oriented, there's no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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