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 safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the specific content of the state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the state is cached, how fresh the data is, or any potential latency, but with strong annotations, 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, well-structured sentence that lists the key components of the toolkit state. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the details. No wasted words.

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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail for an agent to understand its purpose. It could potentially mention that it's a snapshot or if there are any side effects, but with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, that's covered. The description is adequate for a simple informational 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 has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned state includes, which is more relevant than parameter semantics.

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 returns the current toolkit state, listing specific details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource (returns toolkit state) and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which have different purposes.

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 a read-only informational tool for checking the toolkit's current state, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the purpose is distinct enough that usage context is clear.

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