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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds behavioral details about the snapshot contents (build info, tool names, hash, data watermark). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond what annotations convey.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, contents, and usage. Every clause adds value with no extraneous words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists all returned fields (build identifier, server_version, boot time, tool names, hash, corpus_updated_at). The guidance on how to interpret results (comparing versions and hashes) makes the tool self-sufficient and complete for its diagnostic role.

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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter explanations are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 per guidelines.

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 explicitly states it provides a 'Diagnostic snapshot of the deployed MCP server' and lists specific returned fields (build identifier, server_version, boot time, etc.), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools focused on filings, products, and searches.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this first when you suspect the connector is showing a stale tool list or you want to detect whether code or data has changed since your last call.' It also explains what to compare (tools_advertised, server_version, corpus_updated_at), providing clear context for when to use it.

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