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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about the toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog count) beyond just saying 'returns state'. It does not describe edge cases like empty state or error behavior, but the annotations cover the critical non-mutating nature.

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 both concise and information-dense. It lists the key elements of the response without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'toolkit state'. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params) and has strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description covers the essential meaning of the tool's return value (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the user gets, which it does well. It doesn't mention error conditions or how the state is derived, but for a status tool this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds value by explaining the output content (the state details) which is the main value of the tool. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description clarifies what the returned state includes.

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 purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource (toolkit state) is clearly identified with enumerations of the content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog count). This differentiates 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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given the tool's role as a top-level status/inspection tool among siblings that perform actions (connect, authenticate, consultar), the context implies it is used for checking state. There is no explicit when-not/alternative guidance, but the purpose is clear enough to infer that it is used to get an overview before performing actions.

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