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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds that the tool lists complementary remote MCPs and includes one-line install URLs, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficient sentences: what the tool does, what content it lists, and when to call it. Each sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, content categories, output format (one-line install URLs), and usage triggers. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 input schema has zero properties and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly implies this is a no-argument discovery call, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 and resource: 'Discover other flight & travel MCP servers you can add to your client.' It also enumerates the content domains (award flights, seatmaps, delays) and one-line install URLs, clearly distinguishing this listing/discovery tool from the lounge, review, and wishlist siblings.

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 specifies trigger conditions: 'Call this when the user asks about points/miles, seat selection, airport delays/security waits, or what other flight tools are there?' This gives an agent unambiguous guidance on when to select this tool over the lounge-related siblings.

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