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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the negative boundary — private prompts, formulas, credentials, admin pages, source paths, internal routes, feature flags and implementation IP are deliberately withheld — which is behavioral context the schema cannot express.

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 payload enumeration is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage condition follows immediately. The list-heavy construction is dense but each item earns its place by delimiting scope; it runs slightly long but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no inputs, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what it returns, when to reach for it, and what it deliberately omits. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the schema is empty and self-describing, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It adds no param detail, but none is needed.

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?

Specific verb (returns) plus a precise resource (a safe, client-facing capability map) with an enumerated payload: dashboard tabs, data sources, MCP surfaces, coverage summary, and the Scout/MCP boundary. It is clearly distinguishable from the data-bearing get_* siblings, which return numbers rather than a description of capability.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user asks what Hedgr, Scout, or the connector can do.' That is a clear routing condition into a challengeable sibling set. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative (e.g., get_navigation_targets vs this), so it stops short of a 5.

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