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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to establish safety. The description adds value by specifying the content of the return state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It does not add much beyond that, but given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 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 sentence that is dense with information: it lists all the types of information returned. No filler words, each phrase adds meaning.

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 that the tool has no parameters, has comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not need to explain return formats because there is no output schema to contradict, and the description covers the essential aspects.

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, so the schema is complete with no description needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none, but this is properly handled.

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 and enumerates exactly what it includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb-resource description ('Returns the current toolkit state') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'marketplace' or 'show_version'.

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 when to use it: whenever you need an overview of the toolkit's state, including connections and catalog counts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear, especially with sibling names like 'marketplace' and 'show_version' that serve different purposes.

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