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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safe usage. The description adds specific details about what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotation and gives a clearer picture of the tool's behavior. It does not mention any side effects, but consistency with annotations and the explicit 'Returns' phrasing ensure transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that lists all key return elements without redundancy. It is concise, avoids unnecessary words, and directly conveys the essential information. No fluff or extraneous details are present.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively. It specifies the exact components of the toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This provides a complete picture for a user to understand the tool's output without additional context.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not add parameter-related information (as there are none). It does not need to compensate for missing schema details because there are no parameters to describe. Thus, the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 that the tool returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses the verb 'Returns' and names the resource, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool (to inspect the toolkit state), but it does not explicitly state usage scenarios or contrast with alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or when another tool might be more appropriate. This is slightly below the high benchmark that explicitly mentions filtering and alternative tools.

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