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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses the return payload (preflight body + CENSUS-STAMP/1 text + stamp_json) and cost ('Cost matches preflight'). The caveat 'PASS is not a malware scan or permission review' usefully bounds what the result means. It does not explain why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false (presumably the refresh path), which is the main missing behavioral note.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: identity, input equivalence, return shape, cost, and the safety caveat. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description does a fair job of naming what comes back and noting cost equivalence, but it leaves the non-read-only, non-idempotent nature unexplained and gives no guidance on when to set refresh=if_stale versus never — an agent can call it but not tune it confidently.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning, but it only says 'Same input as census_preflight.' Neither `refresh` (never vs if_stale) nor `policy_id` semantics (what baseline/first-party/strict actually check) are explained, so the agent must infer behavior from enum values alone.

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 resource (one exact MCP server) and action (produce a stamp under a built-in policy), and differentiates itself from census_preflight by saying it 'Returns the preflight body plus compact CENSUS-STAMP/1 text and stamp_json.' 'Stamp' is a slightly idiosyncratic term, but the relationship to the more familiar preflight sibling makes the purpose legible.

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?

'Never connect without a stamp' gives a clear directional instruction, and 'Same input as census_preflight' lets an agent map invocation from a known sibling. It stops short of explicitly saying when to use census_preflight alone versus when a stamp is required, but the context is clear.

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