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

The annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint: true), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies the tool's behavior (returns state rather than modifying anything).

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'). It lists the specific components without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations declaring it read-only, the description is complete for its scope. It mentions the key outputs (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities. It could perhaps mention the format or data structure of the response, but that may not be critical without an output schema.

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 the description clearly explains what the tool returns without needing to describe parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% as there are no parameters, so the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter details because none exist.

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's purpose: returning the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, their connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'. It implies that it's for general overview, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others. However, the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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