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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds useful detail about what 'toolkit state' includes, extending beyond the generic annotation-provided safety profile.

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 sentence that begins with the main action and resource, then enumerates the exact data points returned. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and clear read-only/idempotent annotations, this description is sufficient. It explicitly names the categories of information the agent will receive, making the tool's scope fully comprehensible.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no additional explanation. The description provides the relevant semantics entirely through its explanation of what output the 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combo that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 it should be used when an agent needs an overview or diagnostic snapshot of the current toolkit. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the zero-parameter, read-only nature and clear resource scope make the intended usage obvious.

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