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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by listing exactly what state is returned, but it does not disclose potential caveats like timing, error behavior, or performance. This matches the bar for a safe read operation with some added return-content detail.

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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then expands with a concise list of returned details. Every phrase adds value 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 info tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the state is live or cached, but given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential information.

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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description correctly focuses on output rather than parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 the specific verb 'returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state,' followed by a concrete enumeration of contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which focus on actions or version details.

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 conveys clear usage context: it is the tool to inspect toolkit state, including installed MCPs and connections. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but its scope is obvious next to sibling tools, warranting a 4 rather than 5.

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