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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds transparency by specifying exactly what information will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, immediately front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and the resource. It lists the four key components without redundant filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple nature of the tool, empty schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the tool returns the toolkit state and what aspects are included. No output schema is present, but the description provides a clear inventory of return content, making it contextually complete.

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 accepts no parameters (empty schema), so the description needs no parameter-level details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description accurately reflects the parameterless nature.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with a detailed enumeration of its components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, providing clear context about its use case. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but no competing tool serves this exact purpose. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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