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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about what it returns: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not contradict annotations, and provides extra context beyond the safety flags.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and subject, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently captures what the tool returns, including the core information categories. It is complete for its intended simple informational role and requires no additional clarifications.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain anything about parameters, as none exist.

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 explicitly states that it returns the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'toolkit state' make it clear, and it is distinct from sibling action tools like connect or authenticate.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Its purpose as a status/state query is implied, but without explicit guidance, the agent must infer usage context. A clear 'use for checking state' hint would improve it.

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