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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful context about what is returned, such as connection status and catalog tool counts. It does not contradict the annotations and gives sufficient transparency for a safe, read-only tool.

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?

One well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the key action and outcome, then a concise list of returned contents. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for a simple, zero-parameter informational tool.

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 no parameter-depth to document. The description correctly implies that no input is required to obtain the toolkit state, and with 0 params the baseline is 4.

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 and resource ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates the specific pieces of information returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like show_version or connect.

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 makes it clear that this is a state inspection tool, while siblings like connect and authenticate are state-changing actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference specific alternatives, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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