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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual value beyond these annotations by specifying exactly what state is reported—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts—which enriches the transactional profile of this read-only operation.

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 packs all relevant information into a single front-loaded sentence. It names the action ('Returns'), the resource ('toolkit state'), and the specific contents, with no filler or redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the responsibility of explaining return values, listing installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, and tool counts. It could be more precise about connection status values, but for a zero-parameter informational tool with strong annotations, this 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, which serves as a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids describing nonexistent parameters, and the empty schema requires no additional explanation.

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 (current toolkit state) along with a detailed scope: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect/authenticate and from show_version, which likely returns only version information.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: whenever a snapshot of the toolkit state and its integrations is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provided content scope makes the intended usage obvious and distinct from the listed siblings.

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