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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety semantics. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is not repetitive. No contradiction exists with 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, well-structured sentence that lists all returned information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately comprehensible.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately specifies the tool's return content. It could optionally mention that it is a read-only operation, but that is already covered by annotations, so the description is complete for practical purposes.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly does not attempt to explain parameter usage. The baseline for no parameters is 4, as there is nothing to add beyond the schema (which is empty and fully covered).

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 explicitly names the resource 'toolkit state' with details on what it contains (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which focus on actions.

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 implicitly indicates this is for retrieval of toolkit state, and its context (installed MCPs, statuses, etc.) implies it's the go-to for overview information. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given siblings, the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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