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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description aligns with these by stating it returns state without modifications. It adds no extra behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, so the baseline 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, concise sentence that enumerates the returned information without any fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and effectively communicates the tool's function.

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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description sufficiently outlines what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). For a no-parameter read-only tool, this level of detail is adequate to understand its use.

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 schema coverage is complete (no parameters to document). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earn a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters.

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's purpose: to return the current toolkit state, listing specific aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like `authenticate` 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 usage when the caller needs an overview of the toolkit's state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed for a simple read-only info tool.

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