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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact returned data (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), giving agents a clear picture of what to expect beyond the annotations.

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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then provides a concise, informative list of contained data. No wasteful words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no required auth context), the description is complete. It enumerates the output contents and does not leave key aspects unexplained, even without an output schema.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter explanation, and the schema is fully covered by having no properties.

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 clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed enumeration of its contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 clear usage: call this to inspect the toolkit's current state. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is unambiguous, and no exclusions are needed for such a straightforward info tool.

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