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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which covers the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the specific types of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools), providing useful context about the tool's scope.

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 fully describes the tool's output with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists specific data items efficiently.

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?

The description covers the key return components, and combined with the readOnly annotation, provides a consistent picture for a stateless status tool. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently enumerates the information returned; no obvious missing context like time sensitivity or ordering.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description clearly explains what the tool returns without needing to document parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly differentiates from siblings like authenticate or connect by focusing on status/overview rather than actions.

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 this tool is for retrieving overall toolkit state, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like show_version or connect. There are no direct exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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