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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This goes beyond the annotations, providing substantive behavioral context without contradicting them.

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 all key outputs without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'). Every word contributes 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns and implies its read-only nature. It is complete for an informational tool, and the annotations reinforce its safety. No additional information is needed.

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 fully covered with no parameter documentation needed. The description explains the output content in detail, which is the relevant semantic information here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool that delivers useful information via its description.

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 what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and the number of catalog tools each exposes. This is a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and 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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to query current toolkit state), and the context signals show it has no parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Given its simple read-only nature and clear purpose, a clear usage context is provided, but exclusions are not specified.

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