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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by detailing the exact content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is consistent with annotations and introduces no contradictions.

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 all key output components without superfluous words. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's functionality.

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 simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns. It names all relevant aspects of the toolkit state, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and no missing information exists. The absence of any parameter discussion is appropriate and does not detract from completeness.

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 function: it returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, so it unambiguously identifies its purpose.

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 needing an overview of toolkit state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given its read-only nature and clear scope, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to call it.

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