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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing exactly what data will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is beyond the generic annotation information and helps set response expectations.

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 one sentence that packs all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and lists specifics, making it easy to scan.

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, read-only) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return content. It covers the key aspects of toolkit state, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are automatically satisfied. The description confirms the tool requires no input and returns state information, which aligns with the empty schema.

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 the verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with a clear list of constituent elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like connect or authenticate, and from 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the read-only nature and state-focused content imply it is for inspection. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred alternatives, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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