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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which already signal a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds specific details about what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which helps the agent know what to expect beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise sentence that lists the key output components. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds minimal but valuable detail. No unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters, a simple read-only info retrieval, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns. An output schema is absent, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices. A minor gap: it doesn't mention the format or structure of the return value, but this is not critical for an info tool.

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 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description does not need to explain any parameters. The absence of parameters is evident from the schema, and the description's focus on return content is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, their connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect or authenticate, which have different verbs and resources.

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 (to inspect toolkit state) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusionary scenarios.

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