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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it returns connection status and accounts, but does not mention response format, error cases, or permission requirements. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional clarity.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the tool's return content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No wasted words, front-loaded with 'Returns'.

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 is read-only with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns. It doesn't mention edge cases like no MCPs installed, but for a simple state query, it's complete enough. Sibling tools include authentication and connectivity tools, so the description covers the tool's role.

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)Skip. According to guidelines, 0 params = baseline 4. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add anything. It correctly omits parameter information because none exist.

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 current toolkit state, listing the key data items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is precise and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 does not indicate when an agent should call this tool (e.g., before performing marketplace operations or troubleshooting). It only describes what it returns, without guidance on scenarios like checking connectivity after a failed operation. There is no mention of prerequisites or recommended usage context.

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