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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the specific content of the toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is helpful beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any potential latency, rate limits, or whether the state is real-time or cached. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and lists specific data elements. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simple nature (no parameters, no output schema, no hidden side effects) and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly enumerates the key outputs the agent can expect. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify whether the information is static or dynamic, but for a toolkit info tool, this is acceptable. The description does what it needs to for a simple read-only 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 takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since the schema is empty). With no parameters to document, the description naturally carries no parameter-specific information, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain, which is relevant for the agent's decision to invoke.

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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific about the resource (`toolkit state`) and the attributes returned. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings (e.g., `show_version`, `marketplace`), its scope (installed MCPs and accounts) makes it fairly distinct within the sibling set.

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 usage context: to retrieve current toolkit state, likely before other operations like `authenticate` or `connect`. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools for other purposes (e.g., `show_version` for version info, `marketplace` for browsing available MCPs). It provides a clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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