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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what information the tool returns, including connection status and per-MCP catalog tool counts.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the return value and then lists the key data points with a colon and commas. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return contents. The annotations cover safety semantics, and no output schema is needed because the description enumerates the major output components sufficiently.

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 no parameter explanations are needed. Schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty properties object, and the description confirms this is a stateless informational call with no inputs.

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 names the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or connect by scoping to toolkit inventory and status.

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 when an agent needs an overview of installed MCPs and their connectivity, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as show_version or connect. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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