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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the included elements. No wasted words, and it reads naturally. Perfectly concise.

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 read-only query tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. It is complete for the tool's complexity and leaves no important gaps for an agent to infer.

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 zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description provides no misleading or redundant parameter information, so it fully meets expectations.

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: it returns the current toolkit state and specifies the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' which perform different actions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies usage for checking state, but lacks direct guidance on when it is appropriate compared to siblings. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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