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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'live' aspect and 'every tool' scope, which is useful context but does not disclose output format or potential pagination/limits. With annotations in place, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the core function. It does not elaborate on output specifics, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable. Slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. An agent understands what to expect (a list of commands). Missing details like exact formatting or whether the list is static or dynamic are minor and not critical for invocation.

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 single parameter authCode has a very detailed schema description covering the auth contract, accepted credentials, and error handling. The tool description itself does not mention the parameter, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100% and the schema is thorough, baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('live OrbitX MCP tool catalog'), and the output format ('Telegram /cmds'). It is distinct from sibling tools like orbitx__orbitx_menu or orbitx__orbitx_telegram_status, which likely serve different purposes. The phrase 'every tool the bot can run' further clarifies scope.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to retrieve the list of commands the bot supports. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other listing tools (e.g., menu) or any exclusion criteria. It is functional but minimal.

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