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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the state snapshot includes, such as connected accounts and exposed catalog tool counts, going beyond the bare annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the outcome and then lists the key data points. Every phrase adds information, with no filler, repetition, or vague qualifiers.

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 info tool, the description covers the main return categories well. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the exact representation of connection statuses or account identities, but overall this is adequate for its simple scope.

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, so the parameter-semantics burden is minimal and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output content rather than inputs, and there are no undocumented parameters to compensate for.

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') and enumerates concrete contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like show_version or tribunal_trf1_processo_consultar.

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 provides clear context that this is a state-inspection tool, useful for assessing installed MCPs and connection status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use it, but the scope is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed for a zero-parameter info tool.

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