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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful context about what state is surfaced (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes 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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no fluff. Every element adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 informational tool, the description fully conveys the scope and content of the response. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the components of the tool state, making it complete for the agent's purposes.

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?

With 0 parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and it adds value by explaining what information is returned.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like connect, marketplace, and show_version, which address other concerns.

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 for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. Given its read-only nature and distinct output, the context is clear enough, though there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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