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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which informs the agent that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns state information, but doesn't detail edge cases like what happens if no MCPs are installed or if an account connection fails. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is concise, informative, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant words; every phrase adds value.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and the read-only nature, the description is complete enough. It lists all the key aspects of the return value. However, it could mention that the state is a snapshot or that it reflects current connections, but that's minor.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by clarifying exactly what information is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog counts. This fulfills the purpose of the tool with no parameters needed.

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: it describes what it returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). It is a read-only introspection tool that queries the current state, distinguishing itself from the siblings that might have similar info.

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 when to use it (when you need current toolkit state) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like show_version or marketplace. Given the simple nature, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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