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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions noted; the description aligns with the read-only, idempotent 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and efficiently enumerates the specific components. Every phrase adds information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully addresses what the tool returns and its purpose. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, especially given the low complexity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It does not contradict the schema, and no further information 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource 'current toolkit state' with concrete details: 'installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'marketplace' by focusing on state inspection.

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 through its content (e.g., 'installed MCPs', 'connection status') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative-mentioned. It falls into 'implied usage' as it's clear this is for introspection, but no direct guidance is given.

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