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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it enumerates all key return elements without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's functionality and expected output. It specifies the scope of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts) which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool appropriately.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered and there is nothing to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies as no parameter descriptions are needed; the tool requires no 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which have different purposes.

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 its use for querying overall toolkit status without explicit exclusions or alternatives. It provides clear context (informational read), but does not state when not to use it or recommend other tools for specific scenarios, though the context is sufficient for a simple status tool.

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