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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral nuance: 'Missing observations are explicitly unaudited, never treated as a pass.' This tells the agent that absent evidence is not equivalent to a clean record—a key interpretation detail not available from annotations or schema.

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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and contents, and the second providing a critical caveat. No fluff or redundant information; every word 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?

With a single parameter, an output schema present, and annotations for safety, the description covers the essential contextual elements: what the receipt contains, how to interpret missing observations, and that it's a read-only operation. No further explanation of return values is needed since an output schema exists.

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%, with the only parameter 'name' documented as 'Official registry server name.' The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully defines it, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get one MCP server's complete evidence receipt') and enumerates the receipt's contents (operational grade, security/data-integrity/citation/claim observations, real-usage field reports). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_server_grade, which likely returns only the grade, by emphasizing the 'complete' receipt.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need the full evidence receipt for a single MCP server. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'complete evidence receipt' implies this is the comprehensive option versus more focused siblings. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, so it falls just short of a 5.

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