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 established. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is valuable since there's no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loads the action ('Returns') and major subject ('the current toolkit state') before listing the four included aspects. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or filler, making it highly scannable and appropriately sized.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the general purpose and the specific data points returned. It doesn't need to explain return formatting or side effects because the description already enumerates all major content areas, making it complete for this informational tool.

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 is no parameter ambiguity. According to the calibration baseline, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here as there is nothing to compensate for in the description.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('the current toolkit state'), then enumerates concrete contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like show_version, authenticate, and connect, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to inspect the toolkit's current state, such as checking installed MCPs or connection status. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the scope is self-evident for a read-only informational tool, providing clear context without naming alternatives.

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