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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and the description adds value by detailing the specific data returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This goes beyond merely restating annotations, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like connection failures or performance implications.

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 that front-loads the action and uses a colon to introduce a clear list of returns. Every word adds value, and the information is immediately scannable, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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, read-only introspection tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It enumerates all key return aspects, leaving little ambiguity about what the agent can expect. It doesn't address potential error states, but given the tool's simplicity and non-destructive nature, this is not a significant gap.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no schema coverage concern. The description effectively communicates the tool's purpose, and no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters, and the description provides sufficient context.

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 clearly identifies the resource: 'current toolkit state' followed by a detailed list of components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It fully distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'authenticate' by specifying the exact informational content.

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 its use case (checking toolkit state) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It doesn't exclude other tools nor direct the agent to a sibling for different needs. While clear on what it does, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose it over 'show_version' or 'marketplace'.

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