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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints that the tool 'learns the per-server dialect profile,' suggesting stateful behavior, but does not explain whether this writes data, requires prior profiles, or has side effects.

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 description is a single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. It is dense and somewhat jargon-heavy, but it does not waste space.

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?

The tool has five parameters, four of which are required, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives only a high-level purpose and omits enough parameter, return-format, and side-effect detail to make invocation reliably clear.

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% across five parameters, and the description only loosely maps to 'prose' and 'server' while leaving 'tool,' 'mutating,' and the nested 'structured' object unexplained. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: it classifies one MCP tool-failure prose into a recovery verdict. It also mentions the per-server dialect profile, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as error_enforce or dialect_profiles.

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 phrase 'one MCP tool-failure prose' implies that this is used for individual failure classification, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus error_enforce, dialect_profiles, or verdict_stats. Usage is therefore inferable but not clearly directed.

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