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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned information. No fluff.

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 description explains the returned state details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). With no parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient. Missing any mention of format or additional details but adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 there is nothing to describe. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain anything about parameters.

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 that the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented. The verb 'Returns' and the resource 'toolkit state' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is useful (to inspect state), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. Sibling tools are action-oriented (authenticate, connect, etc.), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, no exclusions or alternative selections are mentioned.

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