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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about what information the tool exposes, which is beyond the annotation data and clarifies the actual behavioral output.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and compact. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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, parameter-less info tool with clear annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when it applies. No output schema exists, but the description supplies an itemized list of return content, making it complete.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. No parameter documentation is needed, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes from siblings like show_version by describing a broader resource scope.

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 tool's purpose signals when to use it (whenever toolkit state is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like show_version or marketplace could overlap conceptually, and the description does not draw those boundaries.

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