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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying exactly what state fields are returned, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 key information (returns toolkit state) and then lists the specific aspects covered. It is concise, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, this description is nearly complete. It covers the essential aspects of what the tool returns. It might have mentioned whether the data is a snapshot or real-time, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), so the description has no parameters to explain. It avoids inventing unnecessary details, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 identifies the tool as returning toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which handle actions rather than state inspection.

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 it is a read-only informational tool for inspecting the toolkit's current state, which is clear from context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but 'show_version' is the only sibling with a similar informational purpose, and this description's detail makes the differentiation obvious.

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