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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds specific details about what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict them.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently enumerates the exact information returned. No fluff 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?

For a read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what state is returned.

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?

No parameters are present, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there's nothing to add.

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, enumerating specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely shows version info) and connect (which performs actions).

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 usage by describing what information it provides, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since there are no complex conditions, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for inspecting toolkit state.

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