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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is an app-only, polled endpoint consumed by a UI card, not intended for agent calls. It does not describe the shape of the returned setup state, but the read-only nature is clear.

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?

Front-loaded and deliberate, but the entire content is duplicated in German and English, which roughly doubles the length for readers of a single language. The added cost is modest and plausibly intentional for a bilingual deployment, so it remains well-structured overall.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status poll with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: the app-only constraint and the correct alternative (mcp_health.setup). There is no output schema, so more detail on the returned setup structure would help, but the routing information is complete enough.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to clarify, and it correctly indicates there is no filtering — the card simply reads the current state.

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 resource and scope — polls the current setup state for the FrankKi handover card in chat — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that serves the same data (mcp_health under setup). An agent understands what it does and who it is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (app-only, driven by the chat card polling) and when not to (agents should read mcp_health.setup instead). Both the audience and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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