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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing what is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as data freshness, potential errors, or whether the information is cached. Overall, the description is consistent with annotations and provides minimal extra transparency.

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 lists the main result components without redundancy. Every phrase adds meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description successfully conveys what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. The tool's complexity is low, and the description covers all necessary context for a user to understand the tool's purpose and output.

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; therefore the input schema fully covers parameter needs. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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' with a clear resource—'current toolkit state'—and enumerates the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This differentiates it from siblings like show_version and authenticate, which serve different purposes.

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 that this tool is for gaining an overview of the toolkit, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as show_version or marketplace. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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