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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the exact state contents returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), 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, well-paced sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the contained information. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition exists.

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, annotation-rich state inspection tool with no output schema, this description adequately communicates what the returned state will include. The tool's simplicity means the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 the schema confirms no properties. The baseline for no-parameter tools is therefore appropriate at 4; the description correctly communicates that the tool returns state without requiring 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 starts with a strong verb ('Returns') and the resource ('current toolkit state'), then specifies exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, authenticate, and 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 this is the introspection/status tool for the toolkit, which gives context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with siblings like show_version, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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