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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering behavior. The description adds what information is returned, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions, and no extra behavioral disclosures needed for a read-only state query.

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 concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's output without unnecessary detail or repetition of the name/title.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficient. It tells exactly what information is returned. Could optionally mention that it requires no input or has no side effects, but annotations already cover readOnly and idempotence, so completeness is high.

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 (schema properties empty, 100% coverage), so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed.

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, specifying exactly what information is provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and show_version.

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: it's the go-to for checking toolkit status. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (actions like connect, authenticate) makes it clear this is informational. A brief note about it being a read-only query could enhance clarity, but it's sufficiently clear.

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