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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output nature.

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 packs all necessary information without fluff. It uses an em-dash list to enumerate the returned data, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple, zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and the scope of that data. There are no additional behaviors or constraints that need disclosure, given the annotations already cover safety.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none, and it correctly focuses on the return value.

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 the tool's function: it returns current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb (returns) with a concrete resource (toolkit state) and detailed contents, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need a snapshot of the toolkit's installed MCPs and their health. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling set (e.g., show_version for version info, marketplace for browsing), so it earns a 4.

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