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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value by specifying the exact state details returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the structured annotations. No side-effect caveats are needed since this is a read-only inspection 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and follows with a colon-delimited list of specific output contents. Every phrase adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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 informational tool, the description enumerates all relevant output categories: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. With no output schema present, this provides sufficient understanding of return values. No additional side-effect or prerequisite context is necessary.

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 accepts zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivial and the schema fully covers all possible inputs. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than input guidance, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating exact data points: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like show_version or connect by focusing on aggregate state introspection.

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 use when an agent needs to inspect the current toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No prerequisite or alternative guidance is included, so the usage context is only inferred.

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