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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned, which is especially important because no output schema exists.

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, well-structured sentence front-loads the purpose and packs in the key output categories without wasted words. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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 tool's low complexity, zero parameters, strong annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent can expect. It enumerates all major result components: installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, and tool counts.

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 the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantic burden. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like connect and authenticate.

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 makes the informational, read-only nature clear, implying it is for inspecting state rather than performing actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace) makes the appropriate usage obvious.

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