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 read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what state is returned, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent know what to expect from the call.

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 core action and resource, then provides a concise but informative list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place, and there is 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so thoroughly by enumerating installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for the tool's informational purpose.

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 for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are not a concern here.

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 names a precise resource ('the current toolkit state'), then enumerates its contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are action-oriented rather than informational.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is useful: when an agent needs to inspect the current toolkit state, such as installed MCPs, connection status, or accounts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the informational scope is clear enough for an agent to avoid using it for connection or authentication tasks.

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