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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is well-covered. The description adds useful context about the scope of the returned state but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as freshness or potential overhead.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned content. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a straightforward read-only information tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent can expect. It lists the four major categories of returned state, which is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because the schema is empty, making additional parameter explanations unnecessary.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'). It enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and exposed catalog tool counts, which distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or connect.

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 does not state when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes what the tool returns, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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