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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds what data is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which complements the annotations without repeating them. No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the tool's purpose and output details without any fluff or repetition. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's function and return value.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is complete for a no-input, read-only query tool, and the annotations cover safety aspects, making the overall context sufficient.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the output content, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description provides meaningful detail about what the response will contain.

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 a clear resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or marketplace, which focus on different aspects.

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 implicitly communicates usage as a diagnostic/state query. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling set, there's no obvious conflicting tool. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it when needing an overview of the toolkit's current state.

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