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 agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds a bit of context about what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like potential latency or data freshness. Since descriptions don't need to repeat annotations and the added context is modest, 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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key components of the toolkit state. It is concise, directly states the purpose, and includes no fluff. Every element in the sentence adds information about the tool's output, making it highly efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description needs to convey what the tool returns, which it does by enumerating the elements of the toolkit state. It is reasonably complete for a read-only informational tool with zero complexity. However, it could mention how to interpret the connection statuses or provide a hint about the structure of the return value, but this is not critical.

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 description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the output contains, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate', 'connect', or 'show_version' by focusing on aggregate state information. However, it could be more specific about the exact resource (toolkit state) and the verb 'returns' is clear.

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 the tool is used to retrieve an overview of the toolkit state, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'connect'. It doesn't provide usage exclusions or alternative tool references. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, though the zero-parameter nature makes it straightforward.

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