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 need not restate safety. It adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned, including connection status and account details, but it does not disclose potential variability, latency, or whether the state snapshot is consistent across all MCPs.

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 purpose and then lists the specific data returned. Every phrase carries informational weight, with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's return value. It does so comprehensively by naming all major categories of returned state: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts, making the tool's output expectations clear.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, this warrants a baseline of 4, and no description-based clarification is needed.

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 identifies the tool as a status/inspection resource with a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates its contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 a clear use case: checking the current toolkit state, especially before or after connecting/authenticating MCPs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter read-only info tool, the context is sufficiently clear and non-misleading.

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