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 well covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the state contains and signals that the result is a live/current snapshot, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the key data elements without redundancy. Every clause earns its place and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description supplies sufficient selection and invocation context. It names all major data categories returned and, combined with the annotations, fully characterizes the tool's behavior.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for parameter-less tools, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps and includes all relevant information.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') with an explicit object ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the state components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog-tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and show_version.

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 establishes the tool's context: use it when you need an overview of toolkit state, installed MCPs, connection statuses, or connected accounts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but for a read-only informational tool this is a clear context with no exclusions needed.

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