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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the key behavioral boundary ('never adjudicates') and the exact content returned, which the annotations don't cover. No return format specifics, but that's minor given the self-description nature.

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?

A single efficient sentence listing five content items, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly dense with a parenthetical but every clause earns its place.

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 no-param, read-only self-description tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent will receive and the key boundary, leaving no ambiguity about the call's effect or content.

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, so baseline is 4. Nothing to mislead and no schema weight to carry.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Return) and resource (TrustAI Verification MCP self-description), and enumerates the exact content it yields (operator, verification scope, public tools, boundary, links). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_health, list_checks, and review_legal_text.

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?

It clearly signals this is the self-description/introspection tool distinct from operational tools like get_health or list_checks, so the agent can infer when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative to prefer, so it falls 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.