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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what the returned state contains, specifically connection status, connected accounts, and exposed catalog tool counts, which goes beyond the annotation summary.

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 consists of one information-dense sentence that leads with the main action and then breaks the result set into clear, useful components. No wasted words; every clause contributes to understanding the tool's output and scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only information tool, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No output schema is present, so the enumeration doubles as return-value documentation, and nothing expected from such a simple query tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden to compensate for. The schema coverage is effectively 100% and each additional descriptive phrase is about output content rather than parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's exact function ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates the specific facets returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is a specific verb+resource combination and is visually distinct from the sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: any time a caller needs the current toolkit state or connectivity/account overview. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the zero-parameter informational nature pairs well with the described purpose, making the use case clear.

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