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 valuable detail about exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, although it doesn't mention rate limits or side effects (not needed for a read-only tool).

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and then lists the key components of the state. Every element adds value and there is no 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what information it provides. It's complete for its purpose and leaves no obvious gaps for the expected use case.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), the description doesn't need to explain any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides no param-specific info, which is appropriate.

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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and the specific resource (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate', which are action-oriented, while this is a read-only status/inspection tool.

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 makes it obvious it's for retrieving state and not for taking actions, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but for a simple status tool, that's not necessary. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is self-evident.

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