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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not carry the full burden. The description's 'Returns' matches this non-mutating behavior but adds no additional behavioral caveats such as whether state is cached, whether it triggers a refresh, or whether it requires prior authentication. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but adds no extra transparency beyond 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 begins with the action 'Returns' and immediately names the key subject. Every phrase in the enumerated list adds distinct, useful information without repetition or filler.

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 enumerates the key output categories: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not explain return format or empty-state behavior, but those are not necessary for this straightforward state-inspection tool.

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 and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') plus the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This level of detail distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or connect, which have different purposes.

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 that this is the tool for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention sibling tools like show_version. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'run after authenticate/connect') are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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