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 safe non-mutating behavior is covered. The description adds value by detailing exactly what state is returned, which is useful contextual information beyond the annotations. It does not overstate behavior or introduce contradictions.

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, polished sentence that lists exactly what is returned without fluff. Every clause provides substantive detail, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and only reads the toolkit state, the description fully specifies the information returned. The simple scope of the tool means that no additional behavior, error handling, or prerequisites need to be documented.

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 and the schema coverage for parameters is 100% (none exist). The description correctly implies this is a fixed-state query with no inputs. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adequately aligns with that.

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 defines the resource as the current toolkit state, enumerating exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the read-only nature is implied by the description, there is no mention of when not to use it or a recommended alternative for different needs, such as show_version for version info.

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