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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond those by clarifying the exact return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, per-MCP catalog-tool counts). This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the 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?

The description is one focused sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and scope. The colon-separated list of what the state includes adds value without wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only utility with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the key information returned. It could be more explicit about formats or edge cases (e.g., what 'connection status' means), but the tool's functional range is sufficiently covered.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and includes all required information. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantic detail for the description to compensate for or enhance.

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 precise scope: the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'show_version' or 'marketplace', even though those names are not explicitly mentioned.

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 gives clear context for when this tool should be used: whenever you need high-level information about the toolkit's MCP installations and connections. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternate tools, but the use case is unambiguous for a read-only, zero-parameter inspection tool.

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