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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), going beyond a generic 'returns state.' It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context without requiring additional disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a concise list of included data. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description fully specifies what will be returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Given the low complexity and absent schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output and decide when to invoke it.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return value rather than inputs, and no parameter explanations are needed.

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') with a detailed enumeration of what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This establishes a distinct purpose that differentiates it from siblings like show_version 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 implies usage as a read-only status inspection tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like show_version or connect. There are no exclusions or 'if you need X, use Y' guidance, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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