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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: it never echoes matched secret values, it never raises a protocol error on bad input and instead returns an {"error": ...} object, and retry after correction is safe. That non-disclosure guarantee and error contract are exactly what an agent needs and are not derivable from the annotations; only return-value enumeration overlaps with the existing output 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 purpose and detection list are front-loaded, and each later sentence carries distinct information (non-disclosure, error contract, sibling routing). Slight bloat from the redundant inline return-value enumeration and the stray 'FREE.' marker keeps it off a 5.

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 one-parameter read-only audit tool, the definition covers purpose, detection scope, secret-handling guarantees, error behavior, retry safety, and sibling disambiguation. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so the inline restatement is redundant but not a gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents the accepted formats (mcpize.yaml, mcp.json, Claude/Cursor servers block). The description's 'Typical input' example restates those formats and the example return shape rather than adding syntax or edge-case rules, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Audit an MCP server config') plus the output nature ('risk-ranked posture findings') and enumerates exactly what it detects. It explicitly names the siblings it is not: audit_skill_file and injection_scan, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 on a server configuration document' sets the positive case, and the two explicit exclusions route skill files to audit_skill_file and untrusted content to injection_scan. No alternatives are left to inference.

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