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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond just the annotations.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise but packs in the key details without redundancy, earning a 4.

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 info tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what information is returned, covering the tool's entire behavior. The complexity is low, and the description fully serves the agent's needs.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like authenticate, connect, or show_version, although it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 inspect the toolkit state, which is clear in context of sibling tools that perform actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, but for a stateless info tool, the context is adequate.

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