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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what state is returned (MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output elements without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place.

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 info tool with strong annotations and a clear description of return content, the description is complete. No output schema is present, but the description adequately covers the expected return values.

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, and the schema is empty. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific info (none needed), so it fully satisfies the dimension.

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 returns current toolkit state, enumerating specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (which likely focuses on version) and aligns with the name 'toolkit_info'.

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 provides clear context on what information is returned, making the tool's use case obvious (inspecting toolkit state). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is sufficient for a simple informational tool.

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