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 agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds value by detailing the specific state elements it returns (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the generic annotation hints.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by a clear list of contained items. No filler, no redundancy, every clause earns its place.

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 low complexity (no params, no input schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of 'connection status' or whether output is a snapshot, but for an agent deciding whether to call this tool, the key return structure is adequately described.

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, schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description provides context on the output instead, which 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' with a clear resource (toolkit state) and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect (actions) and show_version (likely a simpler version string).

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?

While no explicit alternatives are named, the description makes it clear this is an inspection tool for current state, which is distinct from action-oriented siblings. It implies when to use it (when you need to see connections or tool counts) without explicitly stating when not to use it.

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