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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what 'state' means in terms of returned data: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No further side effects are implied, and no contradiction exists.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently lists the four output dimensions. Every phrase earns its place with 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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to understand the tool's return value: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for a no-input 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?

With zero parameters, the schema carries no burden and the baseline is 4. The description sufficiently conveys that the tool takes no inputs and simply returns the current state, so no parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state', then enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which reports version info rather than the overall toolkit state.

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 the use context clear: call this to inspect the toolkit state, including MCP installations and connections. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling tools.

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