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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count), which goes beyond the annotation details. It does not introduce contradictions and provides useful context about the tool's read-only nature.

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 efficiently conveys the full purpose. Every clause adds relevant information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count) without any wasted words or repetition.

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 simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool returns. It could mention that it returns a summary or a breakdown, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality. The lack of output schema is not a major gap because the description enumerates the returned 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 fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters, and the description does not detract from this.

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 with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which is about version) and authenticate/connect (which are actions). The verb 'Returns' plus the resource 'current toolkit state' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 for checking overall toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or other tools that might be more appropriate. However, given it is a standalone info tool with no direct sibling overlap, the context is clear enough.

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