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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by narrowing the response to name and creation time and by stating that numeric data is intentionally not included. This 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?

The description is two short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core return scope and then immediately directs the agent to the relevant alternative for other data needs. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, a well-described schema, and an output schema present. The description covers what the tool returns, what it excludes, and which sibling handles the excluded case. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 description for the mcp parameter is already strong: it explains name-or-id matching, case-insensitivity, and suggests list_mcps when unsure. With 100% schema coverage, the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the verb and resource: it gets one MCP and specifies the exact return scope (name and creation time). It also distinguishes itself from get_overview by explicitly pointing numeric requests to that sibling, which prevents confusion even without reading other schemas.

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?

The description gives an explicit alternative and condition: 'For its numbers, use get_overview.' This tells the agent when to switch tools. It does not explicitly contrast with list_mcps, though the singular 'One MCP' and the schema's guidance to call list_mcps when unsure cover that gap indirectly.

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