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 safe, non-mutating behavior is known. The description adds useful content details (MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts) but doesn't disclose additional behaviors such as whether the state is real-time or if errors occur with no MCPs installed. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates key data points. Every part adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns. Annotations provide safety context. No critical information is missing.

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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, and the schema is empty.

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 clearly names the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect (which are actions) and show_version (likely version info only).

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 makes its use case clear by listing the state information it provides, implying when to call it (e.g., to assess toolkit connectivity or MCP inventory). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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