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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals safety, and the description reinforces it by saying the tool 'Returns' guidance rather than mutating anything. It adds useful behavioral context about output contents—refusals, effective limits, provenance fields, recommended next calls—without contradicting the annotation.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence immediately states what the tool does and enumerates its rich output; the second provides the usage pattern. 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?

Even with no output schema, the description enumerates all major return categories (usage guidance, refusals, example, access limits, outputs, provenance, next calls, interaction contract), making the tool's behavior transparent. It also covers prerequisites and workflow, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single tool_name parameter with 'Exact tool name from tools/list.' The description adds the practical discovery workflow (use tools/list) but does not otherwise enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource: 'Free blind-caller guidance for one tool visible on this MCP facade.' It lists concrete outputs (when to use, refusals, example, limits, outputs, provenance, next calls), clearly distinguishing this help tool from sibling tools like get_catalog or resolve_point.

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 directs the agent: 'Use tools/list to discover names, then call this before an unfamiliar tool.' This gives a crisp when-to-use workflow and an implied when-not-to-use (familiar tools). It also names the prerequisite discovery tool (tools/list) as an alternative first step.

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