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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description does not repeat that. It adds value by specifying the exact content returned (state components). No contradictions. The description complements annotations without redundancy.

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 action ('Returns'), and every clause contributes meaning. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns, covering all relevant aspects of the toolkit state. There is no missing information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parametersaca, so the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings. Per rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no param info but also does not need to.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the current toolkit state and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like 'connect' (action) and 'show_version' (version only).

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 usage for retrieving status information, which is clear in context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or versus other tools. Despite no explicit exclusions, the purpose is unambiguous, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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