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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining that 'operator-signed' reports mean the operator gate signed off on a call but do not prove which server answered, which helps the agent interpret returned evidence correctly.

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 definition is two tightly written sentences. The primary action and return scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the meaning of 'operator-signed' proof reports.

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 simple one-parameter read-only retrieval with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, the exact-name requirement, the returned proof reports, and an important caveat about report interpretation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an illustrative registry name format (io.github.owner/repo) beyond the schema's textual requirement, giving the agent a concrete example of the expected value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return one MCP server from the catalog by exact registry name, along with all signed proof reports. The exact-name requirement and example format clearly separate it from the sibling search_tools, which is used to find names.

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 implies the necessary condition (you must already have the exact registry name) but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_tools or submit_report. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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