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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that access tokens are deliberately omitted from the response and explains why, and notes the `mcp_` naming convention. It does not cover result volume or pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the pre-provisioning rationale, then the token-omission caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description already covers the notable return quirk (no tokens). The remaining gap is pagination guidance for the limit/offset parameters, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 0% for two parameters (limit, offset), yet the description says nothing about pagination, page size, or how to page through results. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 ('List the customers provisioned under this license') and adds a distinguishing detail — server-created customers are prefixed `mcp_` — that separates it from provision_customer and the track/stream siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to check here before provisioning because seats are limited, and names the alternative ('Use provision_customer when you need a token for one specific user'), giving both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else.

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