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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value by enumerating the specific return fields (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the generic read-only annotation. It does not contradict annotations and provides context on what to expect without describing output format (which is unnecessary since no output schema exists).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific details. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless read-only tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations that declare read-only and idempotent behavior, the description fully covers what the tool returns. It names all key output elements, so the agent knows exactly what information will be available. No additional behavioral details are needed for this level of complexity.

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 schema already fully describes the input (there is none). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics since there are none. It accurately implies the tool takes no input.

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 the current toolkit state, and specifies exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version (version info) and connect (likely to establish connections) by focusing on overall state rather than a specific action or subset.

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 used to inspect the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate or connect. There's no direct guidance on prerequisites or when to avoid using it. It's clear that it's for checking status, but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations. Given the sibling list, this is somewhat implied but not stated.

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