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 safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what 'state' includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient 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, dense sentence that conveys all essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details the return content. No redundant or filler text; every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the return value contains. It lists the key components (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and likely output. It does not specify the exact format (e.g., JSON structure) or whether results are paginated, but for a read-only overview tool, the level of detail is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the lack of parameters is clear from the schema. No additional parameter explanation is required.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version) or marketplace (marketplace context).

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 usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it could mention 'Use this to inspect the overall health of your toolkit connections' but it doesn't. The context is clear enough that an agent would infer when to call it, but explicit guidance is missing.

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