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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those flags by specifying what the read includes—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog counts—providing useful behavioral context about the scope of the snapshot.

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 and resource, and every clause adds meaningful detail. 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned information: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It could specify the exact structure or whether status is live vs cached, but the current detail is sufficient for a straightforward info tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate. The description appropriately focuses on return semantics rather than inputs, which is the correct trade-off for a parameterless tool.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, authenticate, or connect.

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 clearly implies the tool is for inspecting overall toolkit state by listing exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it obvious this is the overview tool rather than an action-oriented sibling.

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