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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying that the result is a 'current' snapshot and enumerating the behavioral scope: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool exposure. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint and adds value beyond those 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the output components economically. Every phrase adds informational value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and the complexity is low, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result. It fully describes what the operation returns at the level needed for this kind of state-inspection tool.

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 per the calibration baseline it starts at 4. The description correctly focuses entirely on the return value rather than parameter explanation since there are no inputs to describe.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), listing the exact content returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which would report version info rather than toolkit state.

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 inspecting the toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_version or connect. There is no direct exclusionary guidance, but the return-value breakdown makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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