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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description's safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), offering behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key data points. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it, and no critical information is missing given its simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there is no need for additional compensation.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource as 'the current toolkit state' with detailed specifics (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'connect', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when you need to inspect toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to siblings or 'use this when' guidance, so it relies on inference rather than explicit direction.

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