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

The description expands on the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what 'state' includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This adds meaningful context about the response content and read-only behavior without contradicting any 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It perfectly balances brevity with necessary detail.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the tool returns a snapshot of toolkit state with specific fields. There is no ambiguity about input or side effects, and the behavior is fully disclosed without being verbose.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist.

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 begins with the verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource: 'the current toolkit state'. It lists concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 for querying toolkit state. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the action and resource are specific enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but none are strictly needed given the tool's self-contained nature.

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