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

Annotations only cover safety hints, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the tool is optional, the content is also delivered at initialize, and the payload covers permissions, no-advice, and user-borne losses. The only tension is readOnlyHint=false on a pure 'Return' tool, but with zero parameters it cannot mutate anything, so this is a server-default oddity rather than a described-vs-declared conflict.

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 dense sentence, purpose front-loaded, no wasted preamble. The trailing clause summarizing disclosure contents is slightly more than an agent needs to decide to call it, but it usefully previews the payload.

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 an output schema present and no parameters to document, the description only needs to justify the call and characterize the return, which it does. Nothing essential is missing; it could be marginally stronger by stating a trigger for fetching it versus relying on the initialize summary.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The description correctly signals that invocation requires no arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return Gogi's trading/MCP risk disclosure') that no sibling tool duplicates, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the algo/trade/market tools. It also qualifies the retrieval as optional and duplicated at initialize, which sharpens the intent.

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?

'optional; also summarized in initialize' tells the agent when the call is unnecessary and names where the same information already appears, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of explicitly saying when an agent SHOULD fetch it (e.g., before first trade, or on user request).

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