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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact returned content (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the basic read-only marker. No hidden side effects are disclosed, but none are expected given 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-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every clause adds meaningful detail about the return contents, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description fully explains what the tool returns with sufficient specificity (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). Given the tool's simplicity and the safety annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value, which is the only meaningful aspect of this tool.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which reports version info, and authenticate/connect, which are action-oriented.

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 the usage context clear: use this to inspect the toolkit's current state. It implies a read-only overview role, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. No exclusion criteria are provided, but the intended use is obvious.

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