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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establishes the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the exact categories of state returned, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call this 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 front-loads the verb and resource ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specific return categories. Every clause adds relevant information, with no wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by naming the key return categories: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. There is no missing critical guidance for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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, and the input schema confirms this by having an empty properties object. The description requires no parameter elaboration since there is nothing to configure; a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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' with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect, authenticate, and report_bug.

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 opening phrase 'Returns the current toolkit state' establishes a clear context for when this tool should be invoked: whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit's MCP installations, connections, accounts, or exposed catalog tools. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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