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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing this as safe read-only. The description adds value by revealing the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is not otherwise visible. No output schema exists, so this disclosure is important.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific data items. Every word earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 info tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role within the toolkit.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all inputs. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there are no parameter semantics to elaborate.

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 begins with a clear verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates specific data: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like authenticate or connect.

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 when to use it—whenever you need an overview of the toolkit—but does not explicitly state this or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like connect and authenticate exist but no contrast is provided. The usage context is evident from the description, so it rates a 3.

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