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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific context about what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without contradicting the annotations. It provides detail beyond the safety hints, which is useful but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of potential latency or auth requirements). However, given it's a read-only info tool, the description suffices.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the return value and enumerates key elements. Every word earns its place with zero fluff. The information is front-loaded with 'Returns the current toolkit state'.

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 parameterless info tool with full annotation coverage (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully explains what the tool returns. No output schema, but the return content is specified clearly enough for an agent to understand and use. Nothing missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description explains what the output contains, which is the full value since there's no input schema to clarify.

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 resource 'current toolkit state' with detailed content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (version info) and 'connect' (establishing connections).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to know the current toolkit state, connections, or capabilities. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the distinct purpose from siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace) makes usage context clear. Slight deduction for no explicit when-not guidance.

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