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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it performs exact label matching and deliberately does not inspect or verify document contents.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core function first and the key limitation second. Every clause 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 simple two-parameter comparison tool, the description plus schema plus annotations is mostly sufficient. It names the return categories and the important limitation, though a brief note on which list is expected and which is available would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing property-level explanations. It describes the overall comparison but does not explain which array is the supplied set versus the required set, nor does it explicitly map 'matched' and 'missing' to available_evidence and expected_evidence.

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 action ('Compare explicit submitted evidence labels'), a clear resource ('evidence labels'), and a precise outcome ('return exact matched and missing items'). It also differentiates itself from content-review tools by explicitly stating 'This does not read or verify document contents.'

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 description makes clear this is for label-level inventory comparison, not for verifying document contents. The negative scope in the second sentence gives the agent a concrete condition for when to avoid using this tool, though it does not name an alternative like review_mcp_manifest.

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