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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by specifying that existing tools keep exposure, new operations arrive UNEXPOSED pending opt-in, and upstream-removed operations disappear. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious state transition an agent needs before calling a refresh tool.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the three follow-up sentences each deliver distinct behavioral facts (preservation, opt-in gating, removal) rather than filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 single-parameter refresh tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition and the full before/after effect on tool exposure. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to anticipate the result.

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 is a single parameter, server_id, with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter format or source-of-truth for the id, which is the appropriate baseline when the schema is complete.

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 verb and resource (re-read a server's source spec) plus the concrete effect (refresh its tool list). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling set of create_server, get_server, and list_my_servers, which do not touch stored specs or tool exposure.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use when an API has shipped new endpoints, or when a server's tools look out of date.' That is clear context for invoking it, though it does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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