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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds useful specifics about what data is returned, such as 'installed MCPs' and 'how many catalog tools each exposes'. While it doesn't discuss side effects or edge cases, the description aligns with and enriches the annotation context.

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, focused sentence front-loads the action and lists all relevant return fields without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of informing the agent about the tool's return. It covers all key aspects (installed MCPs, status, accounts, counts) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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 baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds value by detailing the output structure, which is the only schema-adjacent information available, even though it doesn't discuss parameter semantics directly.

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 defines the resource: 'current toolkit state'. It then enumerates the exact data returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it distinct from all sibling tools like connect or show_version.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: it returns state, so it is likely used to inspect before acting. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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