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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions client-side execution, zero network, AIN Bridge input application, and rendering as an interactive widget. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description enriches understanding of the tool's execution model.

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?

Two sentences without redundancy: first states the core function, second adds key execution and privacy details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers the tool's scope, execution model, and privacy. Output format is omitted but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. The description could mention the widget's interactive nature more, but overall complete given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the 'inputs' parameter as a map from element IDs to values. The description echoes this by saying 'inputs are applied via the AIN Bridge', adding marginal clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Compute' and the specific resource 'composite MCP server ship-readiness score'. Specifies the evaluation dimensions (tool definitions, server.json, OAuth, etc.), making it distinct from other score tools like score_aml_typologies or score_credit_default_risk. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides context (client-side, zero PII, zero network) which implies safe usage for sensitive data, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like run_mcp_deployability_diagnostic or attest_mcp_server. Lacks direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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