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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by detailing exactly what the returned state contains (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about the tool's output content.

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, well-structured sentence that lists all return components without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value.

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 sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and return content. It covers what is returned, but could be slightly more explicit about the format or any additional details, though for this simple tool it is largely complete.

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 baseline per instructions is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter explanations since there are none. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the specific components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which are action-oriented, not inspection tools.

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 about what the tool does (returns current state) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since it is a read-only inspection tool, its purpose is evident from the description, but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions.

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