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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention potential latency or permissions, but for a read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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?

Exactly one sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides detailed examples of the return contents without unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes to understanding.

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?

For a read-only informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It outlines the key result categories, which is exactly what an agent needs to set expectations for the returned state.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not add parameter details because none are needed and the schema trivially covers all 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 'Returns the current toolkit state' with specific details on the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). The verb 'Returns' plus the precise object distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'.

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 (to get state info) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not contrast with similar tools like 'show_version', so usage guidance relies solely on the clarity of purpose.

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