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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying what exactly the state includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a precise expectation of the response without contradicting annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data points, making it immediately scannable and actionable.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the rich annotations, the description is fully complete for the agent's needs. It clearly states what will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without requiring any additional details.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). The description correctly omits parameter details, and with no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It does not need to add anything beyond what the schema implies.

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') with a precise resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 usage when one needs an overview of the current toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools like show_version. However, the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, providing clear context without needing exclusions.

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