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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact informational payload returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which helps the agent set expectations without misstating any behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs all relevant information without filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: what it returns, and the specific items included in the result.

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 takes no input and has no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: it provides a summary of the return value (MCPs, connection state, accounts, catalog tool count). No deeper behavior or side-effect detail is necessary for a simple read-only 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 zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description compensates by explaining what the call returns, which is the only meaningful semantic the agent needs. Baseline for no-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact components included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, or show_version.

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 implies this tool is for inspecting the current toolkit and account status, which is distinct from sibling tools' actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over action-oriented siblings.

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