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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds the scope of the information returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention if the call is expensive or if it requires prior auth, but given annotations cover safety, 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's output. No fluff, front-loaded with 'Returns the current toolkit state', and every phrase adds value.

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 thorough annotations. The description fully explains what the tool returns without needing to over-specify. However, it doesn't mention the output structure or format, but since there's no output schema and the outputs are self-explanatory ('installed MCPs', 'connection status'), this is sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, and the schema correctly reflects that. The description explains what the output contains, which is the primary semantics for a tool with no inputs. Since the tool takes no params, the baseline is 4, and the description fully compensates.

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 what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'marketplace' which likely manages the marketplace, and 'authenticate' which handles auth.

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 this is a status/info tool for when you need to know what's installed or connected, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'marketplace' or 'show_version'. Since there are siblings with overlapping themes, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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