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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output without guessing. No contradictions.

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 sentence that front-loads the main verb ('Returns') and lists distinct output categories. Every phrase adds information, 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 description fully covers the tool's output scope in the absence of an output schema. For a read-only, parameterless tool, this is complete and self-sufficient—no hidden behaviors or missing details are evident.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description rightfully avoids inventing parameters. No additional parameter semantics needed.

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 data types (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version, which likely only reports version info, and connect/authenticate which perform 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'returns' and the listed contents make the use case obvious relative to action-oriented siblings.

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