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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds specific details about the returned data (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools) without contradicting annotations. It does not mention potential latency or side effects, but for a read-only info tool, this is sufficient.

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, focused sentence that lists exactly what is returned. No filler or redundant information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns and that it's safe to call. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of returned fields.

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 there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not add parameter details.

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 it returns toolkit state with specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('toolkit state'), and distinguishes itself from sibling action tools like connect and authenticate.

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 for checking the current toolkit configuration and status, which is distinct from sibling tools that perform actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is an introspection tool.

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