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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of the returned state but no additional behavioral details such as authentication needs or variability between calls. This is sufficient but not enriched beyond the 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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the specific data returned. Every clause adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent should expect: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%. There are no parameter semantics to compensate for, and the description appropriately focuses entirely on the return content rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating concrete details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which would focus on version info.

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 implies this is the tool to call when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current state, including connections and available catalog counts. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and no competing tool covers this exact purpose.

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