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

Adds context beyond the annotations: access is restricted to verified owners and transparency-log history is irreversible. With destructiveHint=false already set, the description correctly frames this as a reversible toggle with one non-reversible side effect, which is exactly the extra detail annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, the authorization requirement front-loaded, then the action and its caveat. No filler, and the irreversible-history warning is placed where it will be read before acting.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essentials: authority required, the two resulting states, and the permanence caveat. It omits error behavior for unverified callers and whether the listing state is scoped per-directory, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50% (the 'listed' boolean carries no schema description), and the description compensates by spelling out what each boolean state does: listed=false hides from the directory, listed=true shows it again. The 'server' identifier remains documented only by the schema, which is acceptable.

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 concrete verb pair (hide/show) and the resource (server directory listing), so the toggle semantics are unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as scan_server or scan_watchlist, so an agent must infer that this is the owner-side visibility control rather than a discovery tool.

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 a clear precondition ('Verified owners only') and explains the two directions of use via the boolean ('hide ... or show it again'). It stops short of naming alternatives or saying what to do instead when the caller is not a verified owner.

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