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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established. The description goes further by detailing what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), adding behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: it opens with 'Returns the current toolkit state' and then lists the four specific data elements it covers. Every clause adds information without filler, making it both concise and clearly structured.

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 must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: installed MCPs, their connection status, accounts connected, and catalog tool counts. For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with strong annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param detail, which is appropriate since there are no inputs to explain.

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 a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to inspect the state of the toolkit, such as installed MCPs, account connections, or catalog tool counts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but for a zero-parameter informational tool with siblings focused on actions (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the intended usage is obvious.

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