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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description goes further by detailing the exact information returned, such as 'connection status' and 'how many catalog tools each exposes'. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the schema, making the operation fully transparent.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a colon and comma-separated list to add specifics. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is fully complete. It specifies what is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) without requiring an output schema, and it does not over-explain trivial details. It fully answers the likely questions an agent would have.

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 schema is trivially 100% covered. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4 since there is no parameter semantics to add; the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than 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 the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource as 'the current toolkit state', followed by a detailed enumeration: 'installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which imply actions rather than state retrieval.

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 its use case by being a read-only state getter, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or 'use this when' guidance, so usage is only implied by the tool's name and descriptive content.

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