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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent by describing a non-mutating informational operation. It adds valuable context by specifying exactly what state is reported (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the structured 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and immediately specifies the output content. Every detail earns its place, with no redundant or filler wording.

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 tool is simple and has no parameters or output schema, but the description lists all the major categories of returned data (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), making the expected result clear enough for most use cases. It does not describe the exact data structure, but for this simple tool the items are already sufficient.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; it fully describes what info is returned by the no-argument 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 uses a specific verb, 'Returns', names the exact resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates what that state includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This differentiates it from siblings 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: anytime you need the toolkit's current status overview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is hardly necessary; the purpose makes usage inferable.

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