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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Collect,' which suggests a read-like operation, but it does not explain whether querying upstream MCP servers triggers side effects, requires special permissions, consumes resources, or how results are bounded. The meaning of 'bounded context' is also left undefined.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource. However, some domain jargon ('bounded context', 'configured upstream MCP servers') is unexplained, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema, sibling alternatives), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameters, the meaning of 'bounded context', the role of max_chars/server_ids, or the return behavior. Even with an output schema present, the missing parameter semantics make the description incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'query', 'max_chars', or 'server_ids' at all, leaving the agent to infer meanings solely from names and defaults. This is a critical gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 ('Collect') on a defined resource ('bounded context from configured upstream MCP servers') and gives a purpose ('for a remediation query'). This is clear enough to convey the tool's role, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like recipes_mcp_upstream_call, recipes_mcp_upstream_servers, or recipes_mcp_upstream_tools, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 phrase 'for a remediation query' implies a relevant use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the upstream call/servers/tools siblings or what conditions favor it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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