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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool exposure counts), which helps infer the read-only nature and outputs. It doesn't mention any rate limits or caveats, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 sentence that is entirely informative, with no filler or redundancy. It clearly enumerates the key information without any wasted words, making it both concise and structured.

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 this is a simple status-report tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the expected return content (all elements are listed). It also aligns with the annotations. There is no missing context that would hinder an agent's understanding.

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 confirms this (100% schema description coverage). No parameters means the description doesn't need to elaborate on them. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param information.

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 specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and includes a detailed list of what that state comprises (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which serve 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 implicitly conveys that this tool is for inspecting toolkit state rather than modifying it. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace', but the content makes it clear it's for status queries. The absence of explicit 'use this when...' statements is a minor gap, hence 4.

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