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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is well-covered. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. Since it's a read-only introspection tool, additional behavioral context like rate limits is less critical.

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 one sentence, compact, and information-dense. It lists exactly what the tool returns, making every word count. 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and a clear output structure. The description covers the essentials, but could mention whether the connection status is real-time or cached, and whether the account list is filtered. However, given the simplicity nhẹ and the lack of output schema, the description is adequate.

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 parametersaineist, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description clearly explains what information is returned, which compensates for the lack of parameters. With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description exceeds it by detailing the output structure.

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 with specific details about installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect and authenticate which are actions.

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 the tool is used to get an overview of the toolkit state, which is distinct from performing actions like connect or authenticate. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between introspective and action-oriented tools.

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