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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the output scope (MCPs, connections, accounts, counts), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, potential sensitive-info exposure, or lack of authentication requirements.

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 lists all returned information without any filler. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's output, making it both concise and structured.

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 info tool, the description adequately specifies the returned content, even without an output schema. It could add a small note about why this information matters or how it fits with related tools, but the current level is sufficient given the 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 the description does not need to explain any. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Returns the current toolkit state', specifying a clear verb and resource. It then enumerates the precise data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like show_version and authenticate.

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 tool's purpose strongly implies when it should be used (to inspect toolkit state), but there is no explicit statement of when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Guidance is inferred from the described output rather than directly provided.

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