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 description only needs to add context about what is returned. It does so by enumerating the components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts), which exceeds the baseline for annotation-supported transparency. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are unaddressed.

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 front-loads the primary action (returns) and then lists the specific data points. Every word adds value, with no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It does so by specifying the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts). While it does not describe the format (e.g., JSON structure), the given information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output type. It is a simple info tool, and the description is complete for its purpose.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, and the schema already confirms no inputs. No additional semantic information is needed or provided.

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 it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource (returns + toolkit state) and implicitly differentiates from siblings like connect or authenticate, which are action-oriented. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or scope restriction, so it misses the top tier.

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 the tool is for inspecting current state but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Sibling names suggest the tool is the go-to for status, but the absence of direct guidance keeps it at a minimal viable level.

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