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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is well covered. The description adds clarity about the returned content but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as side effects, authentication, or rate limits. It goes slightly beyond the annotation by enumerating the state details, which is useful context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the four key aspects of the returned state. Every word adds value, and the colon-list structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns. It covers all the major categories of state that a user might expect (MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), leaving no obvious gaps in context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 explains what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and it differentiates from sibling tools like show_version by specifying the scope of information provided.

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 when to use the tool (whenever toolkit state information is needed), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No direct comparison with sibling tools is made, so the guidance is 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.