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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral content by specifying the nature of the returned state, including per-MCP connection details and account information, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the main verb and resource, then uses a colon to efficiently list the exact data returned. There is no redundant phrasing 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?

The description fully covers the returned state, including the main categories an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool. With no output schema and the tool being strictly read-only, nothing critical is omitted.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially complete and no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 a precise resource ('current toolkit state') and then explicitly enumerates what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' or '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 provides clear context that this tool is used to inspect the overall toolkit state, including integrations and catalog exports. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'marketplace' or 'show_version'.

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