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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still layers on real behavioral detail: 30-day retention, scoping to the linked installation, and the absence of side effects (no generation, no allowance consumption, no on-device library read). That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded identity and scope, then constraints, then side-effect exclusions — nearly every sentence earns its place. The closing 'Keep all safety warnings and professional-help boundaries intact' is an instruction about relaying content rather than tool selection, so it is slightly off-purpose.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still supplies retention window, access scoping, and side-effect profile. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter alone. It specifies that the key is the 'exact request_key' tied to that installation, adding matching semantics; the uuid format is left to the schema, which is acceptable for a single required parameter.

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?

Precise verb+resource: 'Recover one maintenance-guide request made through MCP by the linked installation, using its exact request_key.' The scope (single record, this installation, 30-day window) makes it easy to distinguish from get_maintenance_guide, though the siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

'using its exact request_key' and 'Only that installation's request records are returned' give clear conditions for use, and the negative clause ('Does not start generation, consume allowance or read the on-device library') tells the agent when not to pick this. No sibling is named as the alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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