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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the state contains—installed MCPs, connection status, linked accounts, and catalog counts—which goes beyond the raw annotations. This contextual detail helps set expectations for the return value without needing to describe side effects or errors, making 4 appropriate.

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 primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') before listing specifications with colons and commas. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive, perfectly sized for its purpose.

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 output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the return context (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts) and pairs with annotations that confirm safety. There are no hidden behaviors or parameter interactions to disclose, and the lack of an output schema is fully compensated by the explicit content listing. The description leaves no unanswered questions for the intended use case.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no schema to document and nothing to elaborate on. The rubric prescribes a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as the description cannot add parameter-level detail. This rationale applies here, yielding a 4.

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's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state'). It details the exact data points included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, count of catalog tools), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. This differentiates it from its siblings, which cover authentication, connectivity, and other separate concerns.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to understand the toolkit's current state, including connections and exposed catalog counts. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, but the purpose is specific enough that usage guidance is implicitly obvious. Since no sibling comparison is given, it falls short of a 5 but earns a 4 for clear contextual cues.

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