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 clear. The description adds contextual value by specifying what the returned state includes, which is useful beyond the basic read-only hint.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb and front-loads the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value, listing the exact return components with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a simple read-only info tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden. The description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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'). It enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it distinct from the sibling tools that handle auth, connection, marketplace, or version info.

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 the tool is used when you need an overview of the toolkit's state, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools. It doesn't state exclusions or comparison with siblings like show_version or marketplace, leaving usage to be inferred.

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