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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond enumerating the information returned. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the strong annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that packs all relevant details without fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action and subject, then enumerates the specific data points returned. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the caller can expect. It does so thoroughly, listing four distinct aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). For a tool with zero parameters and minimal complexity, this is complete enough for an agent to decide and use.

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty (schema coverage 100%). Per the baseline, a 4 is given for 0-parameter tools, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims. It does not need to explain anything about parameters since none exist.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', specifying exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which likely provides only version info, and from the other tools which perform 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 this is the go-to tool for checking the overall state of the toolkit, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like show_version or marketplace. However, the context is clear enough that an agent would understand to use this when needing a status overview.

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