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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the call 'Requires OAuth authorization (Bearer token)', which signals an auth failure mode agents must handle. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned list.

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?

Four short sentences, each with a distinct job: what the tool is, what a toolset contains, the workflow, and the auth prerequisite. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and the auth requirement — enough to call it correctly. Only the return shape (names only vs. names plus descriptions) is left unstated, a minor gap.

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's single parameter (_meta.user_goal) is an optional, client-side analytics field that does not affect tool behavior, and the description says nothing about parameters — it does not compensate for the reported 0% coverage. Since that lone param is inert metadata and cannot be misused, the omission is low-impact rather than harmful, warranting a baseline 3.

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+resource ('List the available toolsets (domains) on this server') and clarifies the concept with concrete examples ('linkedin.messaging, id.billing'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by placing itself first in the workflow, so an agent can tell it apart from get_toolset_tools and call_tool immediately.

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 prescribes the call order: 'Start here, then get_toolset_tools to inspect one, then call_tool to run a tool.' This names both alternatives and the condition under which each is used, leaving nothing to inference.

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