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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the tool returns, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the scope of this read-only operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then uses a colon to list specifics. Every part adds useful information with 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?

Given the tool's low complexity—no parameters, rich annotations, and a clear read-only purpose—the description is fully adequate. It enumerates the key output categories even though there is no output schema, so an agent can predict what information it will receive.

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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, and the schema provides complete coverage with no properties.

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. It goes beyond a simple label by enumerating what is included—installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts—making it easy to distinguish from siblings like show_version or authenticate.

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 the use case: call this to inspect toolkit state and connection status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling like show_version, nor does it provide any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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