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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds concrete details about the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. No contradictions.

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 is information-dense and front-loaded. It lists all key contents without fluff. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and annotations already cover safety and idempotency. The description fully specifies the return contents (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), making it complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke 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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuous). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. Since there are no parameters, the description adds full context by explaining what the response contains. This is above the baseline for no params.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and distinct from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which focus on setup and browsing.

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 is explicit about what information is returned, which implies usage for inspecting toolkit status. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear that this is the status-inspection tool. Since the purpose is narrowly scoped, explicit exclusion isn't critical.

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