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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is established. The description adds value by specifying the exact state elements returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), but it doesn't go beyond that with additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error conditions. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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-crafted sentence that opens with the primary action and result ('Returns the current toolkit state:') followed by a clean, comma-separated list of the state aspects. Every word serves a purpose—there is no filler, no redundancy, and no repetition of information already in the annotations. This is a model of concise technical writing.

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 0-parameter, annotation-rich read-only state tool, this description is complete. It enumerates exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), and with no output schema and no parameters, there's nothing else to clarify. The agent can confidently decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 0 parameters, the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage and the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps since none exist. The description and schema together are fully sufficient—there's nothing about parameters that could be improved.

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 resource ('current toolkit state') and lists exactly what's included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and show_version, which serve entirely different purposes. The description is unambiguous and enumerates the return data comprehensively.

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 the use case—checking toolkit state across MCPs, connection status, and accounts—but never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is reasonably clear given that the sibling tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace) suggest a state-inspection workflow, but the description itself doesn't provide explicit guidance on selection.

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