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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safe, read-only nature explicit. The description adds that it returns 'installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes,' which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential latency or network dependency, but that's not critical for a read-only info tool.

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 the key components it returns. There is no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then details the contents. Perfectly concise.

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 it's a stateless read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information. It explains the content of the return value sufficiently for an agent. Could possibly mention that it reflects real-time status, but the annotations and purpose make that clear enough. No significant gaps.

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 parametersaine Woran. With no parameters, there is nothing to document, so the baseline is high (4 per rubric). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the 100% coverage is trivial. The description effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the primary semantic content.

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 purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and informative, distinguishing it from siblings like 'show_version' (which likely only shows version info) and 'authenticate'/'connect' (which modify connections).

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?

This is a read-only informational tool, so usage guidance is straightforward—it's for checking the state of the toolkit. The description does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it, but given the tool's nature)Skip this blank. The description says 'Returns the current toolkit state...' which clearly implies inspection, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect' make it clear this is not for actions, but an explicit statement would improve the score.

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