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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: proxying carries the same rights as a direct call and the same plan metering, and the response is the proxied tool's own answer. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true since it is transparently a passthrough. It does not spell out what a refusal looks like or whether a failed call still counts against the plan.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a run-on that chains the naming format, the connection-timing condition, and the refusal rule into one clause stack. The information is all useful; the packaging costs a re-read.

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?

Covers the proxy contract (rights, billing, passthrough answer) and the eligibility rule, but an agent learning of a new server still isn't told how to discover valid tool names before calling — connection_tools and connection_tool_schema are the obvious siblings and go unmentioned. Adequate for a 2-parameter passthrough, with a real discovery 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 tool/arguments parameters are already documented with the same prefix__tool example the description uses, so the description adds little parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 ("Call a tool of a connected server") and constrains it to the prefix__tool naming form, which is more than a restatement of the title. The scoping clause about servers connected but not yet listed is what separates it from directly calling a listed tool, though it is phrased in a way that takes a re-read to parse.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition (server connected after the client last listed tools, tools not yet listed) and an explicit exclusion ("a tool of a server your client has listed is refused here"). It stops short of naming the sibling that handles the excluded case (connection_tools / connection_tool_schema), leaving the agent to infer the fallback.

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