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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: results are verified facts, each carrying the vendor source and the date checked, which tells the agent about provenance and freshness. It does not cover miss/not-found behavior.

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?

Two sentences, trigger condition front-loaded, and the long enumeration earns its length by enumerating the exact question types the tool answers. Slightly list-heavy but no 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 one required param, no output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers trigger, scope, and the nature of the return (per-fact vendor source and check date). What's missing is only edge-case behavior — unknown tool name or empty result — which is a minor gap for this complexity.

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 100% for the single `tool` parameter, including the name-or-slug example "HubSpot"/"hubspot", so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or ambiguity guidance beyond it, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single param.

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 sales/GTM tool's AI connector (MCP server) — and that it returns verified facts about it, which is clearly distinct from the plural search_tools / compare_tools siblings by implication. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than asserted.

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?

"Use when someone asks about one ... tool's AI connector" plus a concrete question list (Claude/ChatGPT compatibility, how to connect, read/change scope, credits, plan, admin approval) gives a strong, actionable trigger. There are no exclusions or named alternatives for related cases (e.g., comparing several tools), which keeps it from a 5.

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