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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact behavioral output (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts) beyond what annotations convey, earning a 4.

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 that is both concise and information-dense, covering all essential points without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then elaborates on the specifics, achieving perfect conciseness.

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 (0 params, no output schema), the description fully captures the return semantics and scope. It lists all relevant output categories, making the tool's behavior entirely predictable. No gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (no params to document). The description needs no parameter details, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. It correctly avoids inventing unnecessary semantics.

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 purpose: returning the current toolkit state, and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts per MCP, catalog tool count). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version (version info) and authenticate (auth flow).

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 as a read-only inspection tool, offering context for when to invoke it (to check toolkit state). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given its self-contained nature and read-only annotation, a 4 is appropriate.

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