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 safe, non-destructive nature is established. The description adds valuable context by specifying what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotation hints.

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 leads with the primary action 'Returns' and compresses all relevant information into a short, readable format without any filler or redundancy.

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 (zero parameters) and the description thoroughly covers what the tool does and what it returns. It enumerates the key output components—installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts—making the description complete even without an output schema.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which are action-oriented.

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 this tool is used when you need an overview of the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios. It provides clear context but no explicit usage guidance.

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