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 established. The description adds useful context about what information is returned, but does not go deeper into behaviors such as whether authentication is required or how current the state is at call time.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then enumerates the specific pieces of state returned. Every word contributes meaning; 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 info tool, the description fully explains what the agent can expect to learn by calling it: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No output schema exists, but the listed return categories provide sufficient contextual completeness.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state') with explicit listed contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes toolkit_info from siblings like show_version or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 this tool is for inspecting the overall toolkit state, which is useful context for when an agent needs to check connections or available MCPs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like connect, authenticate, or marketplace, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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