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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact content returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists specifics without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return contents. It could mention the output format, but the substance is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. A score of 4 reflects solid completeness without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema trivially covers 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds no misleading info.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns the current toolkit state' with specific details: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This verb+resource+scope is precise and distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' or 'show_version'.

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 this tool is for querying status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For a read-only info tool, the purpose is clear, but there is no explicit usage guidance.

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