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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description supplements this by specifying exactly what state information is returned: installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not detail error/freshness behavior but is consistent 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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and noun. Every clause contributes meaningful information about the output, and there is 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns and the annotations provide the safety/behavioral expectations. No output schema is present, but the description adequately compensates by listing the returned contents.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter gap to compensate. The description still adds value by fully documenting what the resulting state report will contain.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and names a concrete resource: the current toolkit state. It enumerates the exact contents of that state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts), which makes it clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like connect and report_bug.

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 phrase 'current toolkit state' clearly suggests this is the informational/status tool to call when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's configured integrations. It does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is otherwise clear.

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