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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description goes beyond by detailing exactly what state is exposed (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), providing valuable behavioral context about the return payload.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with a clear verb ('Returns'), a direct object, and a colon-led list of included elements. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what information it provides. There are no gaps that would confuse an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description is not required to add parameter detail.

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' and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like connect or authenticate, which imply different actions.

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 a read-only inspection use case but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. While the sibling names (connect, authenticate, show_version) hint at different purposes, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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