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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral detail.

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, tightly worded sentence that states the purpose and key outputs without any fluff or redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It provides sufficient detail for an agent to invoke it correctly, and no additional context about error handling or side effects is needed.

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 baseline per rubric is 4. The schema description coverage is 100% since there are no parameters to document. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, as none exist, and therefore adds no confusion.

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 toolkit state, enumerating the specific data (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace' that target different aspects.

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 checking the state of the toolkit but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the agent must infer the context.

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