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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying exactly which state dimensions the tool reports (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is more than a generic 'returns toolkit state' would provide.

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 one sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and resource, followed by a compact list of output categories. Every word earns its place with no repetition 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 with strong annotations, the description sufficiently captures the complete scope of returned state. The output is simple enough that no output schema is needed, and the listed state facets (MCPs, connections, accounts, tool counts) make the tool's purpose fully understandable.

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 the input schema carries no burden and the description rightly focuses on return value content. With an empty schema and a clear description of what information is exposed, the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what that includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and connect/authenticate (auth actions).

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 conveys clear context: this is the go-to tool for inspecting the overall toolkit state. It implies when to use it (before or when troubleshooting connections, accounts, or catalog tool availability), though it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives. Sibling names like connect and authenticate make the boundary clear enough.

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