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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds clarity about the content of the returned state (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts). No behavioral details beyond the structured information are disclosed, such as whether the state reflects cached or live data, but the description is consistent with the annotations.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and packs four distinct data points into a readable structure, with no wasted words.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns and is as comprehensive as needed. Nothing further is necessary for an agent to use it correctly.

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; the schema is entirely empty. Per baseline rules, 0 params garners a 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already conveys (which is nothing to define).

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 starts with a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('toolkit state') and enumerates the specific data returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This level of detail clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' and 'marketplace'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's evident this is an informational read-only tool, there is no mention of when to invoke it (e.g., before connecting or authenticating) or why it might be preferred over sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'connect'.

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