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 safety profile is clear. The description adds substantial detail about the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is particularly valuable since there is no output schema. This fully discloses the tool's informational behavior.

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 purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific details returned. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only, parameterless tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The annotations handle safety, and the description enumerates the return items in sufficient detail even without an output schema. There are no gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the schema confirms an empty properties object. The description does not attempt to explain nonsensical params, so it correctly relies on the schema.

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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than reporting state.

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 when to use the tool (to inspect toolkit state) and there are no sibling tools that provide the same information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the clear purpose and lack of overlapping siblings, a 4 is appropriate.

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