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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior<!-- yet the description adds what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), providing behavioral context beyond the flags. No contradiction found.

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, dense sentence conveys all essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the action and lists distinct data points efficiently.

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?

The description provides a clear list of what the toolkit state includes, which is sufficient for a read-only informational tool. It lacks mention of output format or potential sizes, but given no output schema and simple purpose, it is adequately complete.

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 no parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Baseline for zero params is 4, but the description adds value by specifying the return content, which effectively compensates for any lack of param info.

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 ('toolkit state'), then enumerates precise contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect or authenticate which perform actions rather than report state.

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 usage as a status-checking tool for overviewing the toolkit. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and siblings are action-oriented, so context is clear.

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