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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by detailing what the returned state includes (MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), giving the agent a clear idea of the tool's output even without a formal schema. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key outputs in a clear, inline list. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what information to expect. It does not cover edge cases like authentication state or error scenarios, but those are not necessary for a basic state query and are not expected given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the description is not required to explain any. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding spurious parameter details.

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 specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and its components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This level of detail effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target different actions like authentication or connection.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with sibling tools such as 'show_version' or 'connect'. It simply states what the tool does without any context for decision-making.

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