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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's non-mutating and safe nature. The description adds content detail (what the state includes) but no additional behavioral context such as staleness or error handling, so it relies on annotations for behavioral disclosure.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return content without 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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the returned information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), and annotations cover safety. Given the simplicity and zero parameters, this is complete for an agent to understand and rely on.

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 and the schema is effectively empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, 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 tool returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('toolkit state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect which relate to setup.

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 use for obtaining an overview of installed MCPs and their connectivity, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like show_version or ensure prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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