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 value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), but does not disclose behaviors like potential latency or staleness of data. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, directly front-loaded with the purpose, and avoids any filler. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool returns, making it optimally concise.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with clear annotations and a descriptive name, the description covers the key aspects of the returned state. It doesn't detail the exact format of the output, but no output schema exists, so the description's summary of the state components is reasonably complete, though a bit more detail on the structure could enhance usefulness.

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, which the schema fully covers (100% coverage with empty properties). The description adds contextual meaning about the output (toolkit state) even though no parameters exist, making it a baseline 4.

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 function: returning current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and show_version by focusing on state inspection rather than actions.

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 toolkit status, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. Given it's an informational tool with no alternatives for this specific state summary, the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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