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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Called through their seat; their data comes back as it is' and 'Read-shaped tools only' reinforce the read-only nature. It also explains the DM copy behavior. This goes beyond the annotations, providing a clearer picture of what the tool does and its side effects.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description includes extraneous content: the marketing phrase '— Orbitx's MCP server, a live seat on The Wall (hosted by them)' and a listing URL. These add noise and are not essential for an agent to use the tool correctly. The structure is acceptable but could be more concise by removing the irrelevant parts.

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 simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and the nature of its output ('Show whether...' implies a boolean or status). It also mentions the DM copy behavior, which is useful context. The authCode parameter is documented in the schema, so no further clarification is needed. Overall, the description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter authCode, including its description and when it's required (for Grok). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description does not need to compensate, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Show whether this OrbitX account is linked to @theorbitxmcpbot.' It identifies the exact resource (Telegram linkage status) and the verb (show), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orbitx__orbitx_x_status. The additional detail about linked DMs receiving copies of results adds context without obscuring the primary purpose.

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 implies usage by its name and purpose, and it adds a general constraint: 'Read-shaped tools only (anything that buys, sells or writes refuses).' This tells the agent this tool is safe for read operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it (e.g., for checking X linkage). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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