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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a richer expectation of the operation's output.

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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key data points in a compact, easily parsed format. No wasted words.

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 parameterless, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contents and scope. It leaves no ambiguity about what the agent should expect from invoking this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 names the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate and connect, and from 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 makes it clear that this tool is for inspecting toolkit state, which implies when to use it. However, it provides no explicit 'use when' statements or comparisons to alternatives such as show_version or marketplace, leaving differentiation to inference.

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