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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable detail about what 'state' includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), enhancing transparency beyond the annotations without any contradiction.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately details the output. No wasted words.

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 read-only, no-parameter tool, the description fully specifies what the user gets. No output schema exists, so no additional return format is expected. The information provided completely satisfies the tool's purpose.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the return value.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and explicitly lists the resource (toolkit state) and the details included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'.

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 purpose is unambiguous and implies when to use it (to inspect toolkit state) without needing explicit exclusions. It doesn't name alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that guidance isn't strictly required, though a brief 'use when' note would have been a 5.

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