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

Annotations already declare safety properties (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This goes beyond merely restating the tool's name and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output content, which is fully consistent with the annotations.

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 sentence of moderate length, front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a parenthetical list of contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant details. It is both concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the return content at a high level (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), giving the agent a clear understanding of what to expect. No further information is necessary for effective invocation or result interpretation.

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 input schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools since there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description also does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 specifies the tool's function with the verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (version info) and marketplace (marketplace tools), making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 by clearly defining the tool's output: if an agent needs to know the toolkit state, this is the tool to call. There are no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives, but given the tool's specific and non-overlapping scope, this is sufficient context. No prerequisites or special conditions are mentioned, but none 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.