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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'No changes' largely restates them. The genuinely additive content is the audience restriction (owner-only, key verified) and the enumeration of returned fields, but with an output schema present that enumeration duplicates structured data.

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 dense sentence with the audience qualifier front-loaded and the read-only guarantee at the end. No wasted framing, though the mid-sentence enumeration of five return fields makes it slightly list-like for prose.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations, 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers audience, scope and side-effect profile. Remaining gaps (auth failure behavior, whether the last live check is cached) are minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that the caller must be the owner, which reinforces but does not extend the owner_key semantics already documented.

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?

Names a specific verb ('read') and resource ('its state, last live check, ownership proof, key prefix and your recent edit submissions'), scoped to 'the owner of a listing'. That owner-scoping implicitly separates it from the public-facing koskamo_get_mcp_server, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

'For the owner of a listing' establishes the audience precondition and 'No changes' signals a read-only check, so the use case is implied. However, it never states when to pick this over koskamo_get_mcp_server, koskamo_get_mcp_issue_status, or koskamo_list_mcp_directory_changes, nor what to do if the ownership check fails.

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