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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add behavioral context beyond that. It does so by enumerating the returned information: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts, which clarifies the observable behavior despite lacking an output schema.

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 but is information-dense, front-loading the purpose and then listing the exact categories of state information returned. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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 this is a no-input read-only information tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It names the return dimensions and does not require additional caveats.

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, so the schema provides no semantic burden. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what information is returned rather than any input details.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then expands with concrete elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes the purpose easy to understand and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate.

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 conveys when this tool is useful: whenever an agent needs to inspect the toolkit's installation and connection state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals that sibling tools like connect and authenticate are for changing state, not inspecting it.

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