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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful non-obvious context about what the state includes—connection status, linked accounts, and tool counts—without contradicting the annotations. It does not discuss latency or freshness, but for a simple state-query tool the added detail is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and enumerates the exact data returned. Every element earns its place; 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent utility tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value by listing the four categories of information returned. The annotations cover safety behavior, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 the input schema needs no additional semantic explanation. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing missing in parameter guidance.

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 names the resource: current toolkit state. It enumerates the returned contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like connect or authenticate that perform actions.

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 appropriate usage context: calling this tool whenever the agent needs a read-only snapshot of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the clear scope 'current toolkit state' and the safe read-only nature provide enough context for appropriate selection.

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