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 known. The description adds value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 primary purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists the returned elements. No wasted words, perfect conciseness.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so explicitly, listing the exact types of information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). For a simple parameterless info tool, this is complete.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the input. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. It correctly relies on the schema.

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 states the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely returns version info) and marketplace (which may list available MCPs).

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 conveys a clear context—use this to inspect overall toolkit state—but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for status checks, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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