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

Annotations already declare this read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds what the return value contains but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential latency, whether it reflects live status, or any prerequisites beyond what annotations cover.

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 primary purpose and enumerates the return contents without extraneous detail. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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, parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the scope of the toolkit state. It could arguably mention that the data reflects current live connections, but overall it is complete for typical usage.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic information beyond an empty object. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to compensate, and it focuses on return value rather than input semantics.

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 the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing the specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version by providing a detailed scope of information.

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 and what components are available, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like show_version. It provides clear context but lacks exclusion guidance.

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