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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what 'state' includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is consistent with the read-only nature and gives the agent a full behavioral picture without being prompted.

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 names the resource and immediately lists the key data points. Every word is informative, with 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 status tool, the description is complete. It explains exactly what information will be retrieved (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. Nothing is missing.

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 defines the resource as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which imply authentication and connectivity 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 gives clear context of what the tool does and what it returns, making its use case obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is sufficiently distinct that exclusions would be redundant.

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