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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral detail that this tool takes a snapshot of toolkit state and reports it, which enriches what a caller can expect.

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 one tight sentence that starts with the action 'Returns' and then delivers a structured list of the returned information. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full responsibility for explaining the response shape, and it does so by naming installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and per-tool catalog counts. This fully covers the simple state-summary nature of the 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema contains no properties, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description gives a complete picture of what the no-input tool returns.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and then enumerates the exact contents. This clearly differentiates toolkit_info from action-oriented siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, and even from show_version.

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 a clear context for use: when an agent needs an overview of installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, or catalog tool counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinctive enough that usage is clear.

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