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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with those. The description adds useful context by detailing what the returned state covers (MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 concise sentence explains the function and listing of all outputs without filler, repetition, or irrelevant details. It is well-formed and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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, the description fully covers the necessary return content: installed MCPs, status, associated accounts, and tool counts. No output schema is needed because the description sufficiently enumerates the principal results, and the low complexity does not require further detail.

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 coverage (the schema is empty), so there is nothing the description needs to explain. The baseline 4 is appropriate because no additional territory is missing.

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 is highly specific: it states 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates exactly what that includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog-tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect, authenticate, and report_bug.

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 use when you need a snapshot of the current toolkit state, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't note that show_version might be the better choice for version-only information.

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