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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific details about what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No 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?

Single sentence, action verb front-loaded, enumerates all key output elements. No wasted words.

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 read-only state tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what will be returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. That's sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 to describe. Schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Baseline 4 applies because the description doesn't need to explain parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', and enumerates the specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate which are actions, making it unambiguous.

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 usage context: it's for inspecting toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace, etc.) are actions, the read-only nature is clear. Lacks explicit exclusions, but context is sufficient.

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