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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's 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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then specifies the includes. No excess words or redundant phrasing; every element contributes to clarity.

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?

Given the simple nature (no parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety context), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 there are no parameter semantics to describe. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for tools with no parameters; no explicit parameter information is 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates specific data included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinctively separates it from siblings like show_version or connect, which have different purposes.

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 tool is for retrieving toolkit state, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when debugging connections or before using connect/authenticate). No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced, so usage guidance is only implied.

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