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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Read only' largely restates that. The descriptions that do add value beyond the annotations are 'no charges' (cost) and 'no live downstream actions' (blast radius), plus the epistemic caveat that a passing probe proves neither account authority nor task completion. That is real added context, though it is brief.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and evidence types, followed by safety and epistemic caveats. Nothing is padding, though the opening noun pile of six evidence types is dense at first read.

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?

With an output schema present and one fully documented parameter, the missing return-value detail is acceptable. What remains missing is the relationship to sibling tools and what 'independent' evidence implies in practice, which matters given how many near-adjacent inspect tools exist.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema documents server_id at 100% coverage ('ID or slug of the published directory server to assess'). The description adds no format, resolution, or error semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Inspect') plus a precisely enumerated resource (listing, source, schema, grant, permission, tested-action evidence) scoped to server_id. The purpose is unmistakable, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as get_capabilities, get_mcp_server_status, or get_connection_health, which plausibly overlap in territory.

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 never states when this tool should be chosen over the many sibling inspection tools, nor any prerequisites. The caveat about a successful probe is a limitation of the result, not guidance on selection.

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