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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds meaningful context by specifying what information is returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is helpful beyond the annotations alone.

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 main action and then lists the specific elements of the state. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the tool's return value. It does so comprehensively by listing all key components of the toolkit state. This is complete for a simple, read-only information 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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It instead elaborates on the return value, which is the useful semantics here. With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description fully compensates by clarifying the output.

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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the specific resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, count of catalog tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or marketplace by focusing on overall toolkit state rather than a single aspect.

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 for when to use the tool—when you need an overview of the toolkit's installed components and their status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool is relevant.

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