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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is what matters: it discloses that the call is free/no credit cost, and that results include per-target capabilities ('what each can do'). It does not say whether the list is account-scoped or whether a target can disappear, but it adds real context beyond annotations.

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 dense sentence with the cost signal front-loaded, followed by the target categories and the return hint. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it only gestures at it ('with what each can do') without naming fields. It also blurs fixed built-in targets (Cameo/XMI, .sysml) with account-registered servers, leaving the agent unsure how many entries to expect or how they are identified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about input requirements.

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 resource: export targets, i.e. the destinations where subsystems can be exported, and enumerates the concrete categories (SysML v2 API servers, Cameo via XMI, .sysml files). It distinguishes the tool from the action sibling mbe_export by framing it as discovery rather than export, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before mbe_export or alongside mbe_add_target, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or that it is a prerequisite for export. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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