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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context by specifying what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotation safety profile. It doesn't mention any edge behaviors, but for a read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the four return categories. Every part adds value; no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description fully covers what the agent needs to understand what it returns. The sibling tools are clearly action-oriented, and the description makes it obvious this is a read-only status check.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies due to no parameters, and the description's focus on return content 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and detailed resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating exactly what it provides: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like authenticate and connect.

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 usage for when you need an overview of the toolkit's current state, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like authenticate and connect are clearly different actions, but there's no direct comparative guidance.

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