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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it 'reads no member data,' requires no authentication, and clarifies the historical name is misleading. It also discloses exactly what is returned, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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?

Four compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover usage, return payload, and access requirements. There is no filler, no repetition of the schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only utility, the description covers why it exists, when to use it, what it returns, and what access is required. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly listing the return contents: endpoint URL, JSON configuration snippet, and callable tool counts per tier.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema fully documents that, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces it with 'Takes no parameters' and adds the useful clarification that the tool 'reads no member data,' ruling out hidden inputs or side effects.

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: 'Get the wiring instructions for connecting an MCP client to ~alter.' It also explicitly corrects the potentially misleading name by clarifying that it returns connection details, not a recommended tool, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling auth/status tools.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: 'Use it when adding ~alter to a new MCP client, or when passing the endpoint to another agent so it can connect for itself.' These trigger conditions are unambiguous and leave no doubt about when to invoke this tool.

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