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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description avoids contradiction and adds useful context by specifying the exact categories of state returned, such as connection status, linked accounts, and exposed catalog tool counts.

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 sentence that starts with 'Returns' and immediately itemizes the four relevant aspects of toolkit state. There is no fluff or repetition, and the description is front-loaded with the intent. The apt for a tool with no parameters.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with strong annotations and no expected output schema. The description effectively lists the key contents of the response and leaves out non-reinvested details like error handling and side effects.

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 and no input schema properties, the description cannot need to clarify parameter behavior; the baseline of 4 applies. The description making the query's purpose self-evident is appropriate and provides enough context for a stateless info call.

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 states the tool 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates exactly what that entails: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and clearly distinguishes it as an introspection/status tool rather than any of its siblings that perform actions or show other information.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need an overview of the current toolkit installation and connection state. It doesn't list explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter state-retrieval tool the context is sufficiently obvious.

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