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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds value by disclosing the package contents (portal requirements, free-account guidance) which is helpful behavioral context, but it doesn't mention any nuances like format, caching, or prerequisites. It is consistent with annotations and adds moderate context beyond them.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key inclusions. No filler or redundancy.

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 is simple with no parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description lists what the package contains, which covers most of what an agent needs to know. It doesn't specify return format, but given the output schema exists, that's not required. For a zero-parameter getter, this is adequate and complete.

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?

Tool accepts zero parameters, so the description has no burden to explain them. The 100% schema coverage is trivial with an empty object. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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?

Specific verb 'Return' with a defined resource (MCP, directory, and app-submission package). The content is explicit enough to distinguish it from generic get tools, though 'MCP' is an unexplained acronym that could confuse an agent. It clearly names what is returned and the included guidance.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The description states what it returns but not the context that should trigger an agent to select this tool over the many siblings like get_submission_profile or get_kit. The only clue is the specific content mentioned, which is weakly implied.

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