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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by detailing the exact contents of the return value (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits are apparent.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs all essential content. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it optimally concise.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. With no parameters and no side effects (as indicated by annotations), the description covers all necessary context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It is complete and self-contained.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter context is required since none exist.

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 returns current toolkit state and enumerates specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is sharply distinct from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 use for inspecting state but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no direct guidance on when it is preferable to sibling tools, though the purpose is self-evident from the description.

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