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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and sets expectations for the response.

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 verb and object, then enumerates the key elements of the return value. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a simple, no-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema fully covers semantics (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and details exactly what is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_version or connect by focusing on overall state instead of a single version or action.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to call when you need an overview of the toolkit's state. However, it does not explicitly mention when it should be preferred over siblings or any exclusions, so it relies on the user to infer the context.

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