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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context: it enumerates what the return payload contains (connections, clients, next step, example prompts, recent features). It doesn't mention any rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only informational tool this is close to complete.

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 sentence covers usage triggers and another sentence enumerates the return contents. It's front-loaded with the 'when to use' condition. Slightly dense 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?

Given zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of output disclosure, and it does by listing what is returned. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify whether this is a per-session call or how often to invoke it, but that's a minor omission.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and it uses the space to describe the output instead, which 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 states the resource (onboarding/setup info about Agency MCP) and what it returns, but the verb is implicit. It does distinguish itself from the many action-oriented siblings (ads_*, wp_*, gsc_*) as a general orientation tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with client_overview or list_clients.

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 names when to use it: 'when the user asks how to set up Agency MCP, what it can do, what is new, or what to do first.' This gives an agent clear triggering conditions, which is rare and valuable among the siblings.

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