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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about what information the tool reveals, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, grammatically tight sentence front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool, the description fully explains the return content. No output schema exists, but the description covers the necessary information an agent needs, and annotations handle the behavioral safety guarantees.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to bear. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately ignores 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what the output includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and connect (establishing connections).

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 context is clear: use when needing the current toolkit state, which implies checking installed MCPs, connection status, and accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused scope (state vs. actions) makes the intended usage apparent against sibling tools.

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