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 context about returned information but doesn't disclose any additional behavior like data freshness, potential delays, or whether it summarizes across multiple MCPs. Given annotations provide the key safety information, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that packs all key elements: what it returns (toolkit state), the specifics (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). There's zero fluff; it is front-loaded with the most important verb 'Returns' and resource 'current toolkit state'.

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 simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the main deliverables (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). A brief mention of the purpose (e.g., 'Use to diagnose connectivity') would make it even more complete, but for a low-complexity tool, this 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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. With schema coverage at 100% (vacuous for zero params), the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters.

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 what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts connected, and catalog tool counts. It mentions specific resource (toolkit) and the information returned. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the scope is distinct enough (state inspection vs. authentication, connection, marketplace, etc.).

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 status but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's a read-only diagnostic or that it should be used before other actions. Sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' could be alternatives, but no exclusion guidance is provided.

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