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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the returned state (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) without contradicting any annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and object, followed by a compact enumeration of details. Every word contributes value with no repetition 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 tool with no inputs and no output schema, the description fully specifies the content of the returned state. Combined with strong annotations, there are no significant gaps in understanding what this tool does or what it returns.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema contains nothing to elaborate. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters.

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 a precise resource ("current toolkit state"), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like show_version 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 establishes a clear context: this is the tool to inspect toolkit state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the self-descriptive wording implies the usage scenario well enough, especially given sibling tool names.

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