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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with behavior an annotation cannot express: unauthenticated access, availability on the full and read-only MCP doors but not the protocol door, and the guarantee that repeated calls are safe. This is exactly the deployment and auth context an agent needs before deciding whether the call will work on its transport.

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?

Two sentences: the first states what it is and when to use it, the second states the access and safety profile. Nothing repeats the title, and the trigger conditions come before the supporting detail.

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 zero-parameter guidance read with no output schema, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly: purpose, triggers, auth, and door availability. The one small gap is what the returned guidance looks like, such as whether it returns structured advice or freeform text.

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 takes no parameters, so there are none to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing misleading about inputs, and none is needed.

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 names a specific resource: server-owned support, diagnostics, and reporting guidance, and frames it as a reference doc rather than an action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings of the other ~90 tools, which perform concrete record, attestation, or payout operations, by describing a guidance read.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: transport errors, rate limits, or unexpected failures, so an agent knows exactly when to reach for it. However, it does not say what to do after reading it or name what to fall back on if the problem is not covered, so it stops short of a full when-or-when-not specification.

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