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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by detailing what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), providing actionable transparency about the return content beyond the mere 'safe operation' implication.

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, well-structured sentence delivers all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('Returns') and specifies exactly what is returned, making every word earn 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 no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It enumerates all the categories of data returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope or return content.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously complete). The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameters. With no parameters to clarify, the baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema 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 a specific verb 'Returns' and names the exact resource ('current toolkit state') and its composition (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'connect'.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a snapshot of the toolkit's current configuration and status, which is a common read-only need. While it doesn't name alternatives explicitly or state exclusions, the context (read-only state vs. sibling actions) makes appropriate usage evident.

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