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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the kind of data returned (e.g., 'how many catalog tools each exposes'). It does not contradict annotations and provides enough context for an agent to understand the read-only nature, though it doesn't mention any potential latency or cached data concerns.

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, grammatically complete sentence front-loads the action and resource, followed by a concise list of returned information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no padding.

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 parameter-less, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates all returned data categories. It covers who/what is reported (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), making it entirely clear what the agent will receive. No output format is needed for such a simple 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 accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. No additional semantics are required.

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' with a clear resource 'toolkit state' and enumerates distinct data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like show_version or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to call this tool (whenever current toolkit/connection state is needed) by listing exactly what it returns. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternatives (e.g., 'use show_version for version info'), so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level standard.

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