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

The description discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly by stating it 'returns' state, and annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral detail about the content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists what the tool returns. No filler or repetition. Every clause adds information about the content of the response.

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 with no parameters and no output schema. The description comprehensively covers what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. Given the simplicityches, this is complete.

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 0 parameters mice schema coverage is 100% (trivially), the description doesn't need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to.

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 returns toolkit state, specifically enumerating installed MCPs, their connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool count. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) or marketplace (available MCPs).

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 its usage for checking current state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It provides clear context on what it returns (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts) without mentioning exclusions or alternative tools. This qualifies as clear context with no exclusions, rating a 4.

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