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 covered. The description goes beyond by specifying what kind of state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), adding behavioral context about the tool's scope without conflicting with the annotations.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action and then lists the specific contents in a comma-separated list. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns and in what detail. It covers all major aspects a user would need to know: the general purpose and the specific items contained in the state. There are no missing pieces.

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 schema already fully covers parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter-related details, and no additional meaning is required.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which are action-oriented, while 'toolkit_info' provides a read-only overview.

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 usage context (checking the state of installed MCPs and connections) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It's adequate for a simple informational tool but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when you need to perform an action).

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