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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds concrete context about what information is returned, which goes beyond the empty schema. No contradiction; it reinforces the annotation's safety profile.

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 lists all output components without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The list of contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) is sufficiently detailed for an agent to decide if this is the right tool.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by default. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs, adding no unnecessary 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 a specific verb 'returns' and clearly names the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact elements returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely only reports version info.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: whenever you need a summary of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is clear enough. It could name show_version as the alternative for version-only queries.

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