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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) and emphasizes 'current' state. No additional behavioral caveats needed for this tool.

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 main purpose and then enumerates the exact output fields. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema or parameters, the description fully conveys what the tool returns and when to use it. It covers the essential information an agent needs to decide whether to call this 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, so there is no burden on the description to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly omits param information.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 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 when to use the tool (when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit state and connected accounts), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by listing its output. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear.

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