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 behavioral context by specifying exactly what aspects of toolkit state are returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradiction exists; the only minor gap is no mention of pagination or response shape, but annotations lower the bar.

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 with no filler. It opens with the action and resource, then provides a compact, useful list of return details. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter read-only status tool, the description fully covers what the agent can expect from the output: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately carries the burden of explaining return content.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output instead.

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 the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates concrete contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or 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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the current toolkit state/overview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough that no strong alternatives compete.

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