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

Annotations already declare the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that by specifying what state is inspected (MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) and uses 'current' to signal a snapshot rather than a persistent action.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the output contents with a clear enumeration. There is no repetition of the tool name or title, and every phrase adds useful detail.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the return value by enumerating the four categories of state it exposes. The tool is simple, has no parameters, and its annotations clarify its safety profile, so the description fully covers the context an agent needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 names the exact resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the included information: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like show_version and 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 provides clear context by stating exactly what information the tool returns, so an agent can infer when to call it: whenever toolkit state is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the purpose makes the usage context obvious.

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