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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific output details (MCPs, connections, accounts, tool counts), which is useful context beyond the annotations. 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?

Single sentence, highly concise with clear structure listing what is returned.

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 info tool with no parameters and clear annotations, the description fully captures the output. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity, it's complete enough.

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)Skip, so all parameters are covered trivially. The description explains the output, which is sufficient.

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 specifies the function: returning toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and a concrete resource ('current toolkit state'), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (auth flow) or report_bug (bug reporting).

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 (to inspect toolkit state) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like show_version or explain when not to use it. Context is clear, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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