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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, covering safety traits. The description adds value by detailing what the returned state includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key contents. No fluff or redundancy; every word adds information.

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 informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect. It enumerates the major components of the returned state, making the tool's functionality self-contained and clear.

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 factually, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no param information because none exists; the baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 starts with 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely reports only a version string.

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?

While the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, it clearly states the tool returns a comprehensive state overview. An agent can infer usage context (e.g., inspecting installed MCPs or connectivity) without ambiguity, though no exclusions are noted.

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