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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what state information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent an expectation of the response content without needing an output schema.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and immediately lists the delivered information. Every clause adds useful detail, with no wasted words or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 good annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key components of the result.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is no parameter information to provide. The tool is a simple query with no configuration choices.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which likely only returns version info, and authenticate/connect, which perform 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 the tool is for retrieving an overview of the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this to check connection status before calling authenticate' or contrast with show_version. Context is present but not explicit.

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