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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful detail about the returned content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing context beyond what annotations convey. It does not discuss caching or live freshness, but that is non-critical for a state summary.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the object, and the specific payload of the returned state. Every listed element adds value and there is no filler or restated metadata.

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 is simple and parameterless, and the description fully captures the informational content of the response. Given strong annotations and this clear list of returned categories, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the result.

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, the schema imposes no burden, and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to document any params because there are none; nothing is unexplained.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') plus enumerates the concrete information returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which would report version details.

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 plainly implies when to use this tool: whenever you need a snapshot of the toolkit's installed MCPs, connection status, and accounts. There is no explicit alternative comparison, but the domain is self-contained and no confusion with siblings arises.

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