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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the bare annotations. No contradictions exist; it reinforces the read-only nature 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action. Every element is informative: the verb, the subject, and the enumerated contents. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (no parameters) and the rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explicitly lists the four key components of the state, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role without an output schema.

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 description carries no parameter burden. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and there is nothing to add beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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's exact purpose: returning the toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 provides clear context on what the tool outputs (a state summary), implying it is used to inspect the toolkit's current configuration and connectivity. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the nature of the tool makes its usage obvious, and it avoids misleading cues. No alternatives are named, but the context is sufficient.

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