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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which fully discloses the tool's behavior without 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, information-dense sentence that lists all key output facets without any fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with 'Returns the current toolkit state' and immediately enumerates the details. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description is complete. It enumerates all relevant output categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a clear understanding of what to expect. The sibling context does not introduce additional requirements.

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 schema is fully documented (100% coverage). No parameter descriptions are needed. The description focuses on the output, which is entirely sufficient. Baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate because there is no parameter complexity to explain.

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 with specific details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('toolkit state') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' by focusing on state inspection rather than 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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (any time you need an overview of the toolkit's MCPs and their status). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. With siblings like 'connect' and 'authenticate', the context makes its purpose obvious, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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