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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. However, it adds meaningful detail about what 'toolkit state' entails (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which provides value beyond the annotations. It could have mentioned that no side effects occur, but the readOnly hint covers that.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return value with a colon-separated list. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete and accurate summary of what the tool does and what it returns. Sibling tools are distinct, and the description leaves no critical gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 description coverage is vacuously 100% (no schema descriptions needed). The description fully compensates for the lack of parameters by explaining what the response will contain, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then lists the exact components included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace', which serve different functions.

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 it obvious when to use this tool - whenever one needs to inspect the overall toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools are functionally distinct (e.g., 'authenticate', 'report_bug'), the usage context is clear without explicit exclusions.

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