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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context that annotations cannot convey: the result is derived from actually registered tools, mode and server dependencies, and permissions are only evaluated when account_id is provided (otherwise 'remain unchecked'). That conditional semantics is genuinely useful.

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?

Three tight sentences with the definition of what is inspected front-loaded, followed by the parameter behavior and then the usage trigger. No redundancy and nothing extraneous.

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 single optional-parameter, no-output-schema meta tool, the description covers what is examined, the conditional permission behavior, and when to invoke it. It does not sketch the shape of the returned capability/permission report, but the tool's purpose makes that minor.

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 carry account_id's meaning, and it does: supplying it triggers a role-permission check while omitting it leaves permissions unchecked. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the uuid format, but that is already encoded in the schema's format/pattern.

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?

States a specific verb (Explain) and resource (what this Featurevote connection can do), and specifies the inputs driving the answer (registered tools, mode, server dependencies). This is a meta/diagnostic tool that is easily distinguished from all data-retrieval siblings like get_board or list_features.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks what you can do,' plus a follow-up behavior (summarize workflows and restrictions). It stops short of naming alternatives, but no sibling overlaps this capability, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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