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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing what the map identifies, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like whether authentication is required or if the response is cached. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states what it returns; the second lists the categories of information. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters, an output schema defining the return format, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose and content sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing further elaboration.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description clearly states it expects an empty object. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly states the tool returns a machine-readable routing map for Spala MCP clients and enumerates the specific content categories (public/authenticated tools, installer clients, OAuth endpoints, handoff rules, entry points). This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like spala_help or spala_get_onboarding.

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: when you need a routing map containing tool classifications and endpoints, this is the tool. It provides clear context about what the map includes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as spala_help. Since no exclusions are given, it stays at a 4.

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