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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses a critical privacy behavior: 'This server never requests your incident notes and instructs your AI to keep them local—guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.' It also clarifies the output is a compact subset of ir_load_context, adding operational understanding not present in 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by crucial behavioral context. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 routing tool with strong annotations, the description covers the intent, the usage scenario, its relation to ir_load_context, and privacy guidelines. This is fully adequate for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'Lenny Zeltser's IR cross-server handoff routes' and defines the use case ('when this MCP server can't fulfill a request'). It also distinguishes itself from ir_load_context by noting it surfaces a 'compact subset', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('when this MCP server can't fulfill a request') and mentions ir_load_context as a related broader tool, implying an alternative. However, it stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' or direct pointer to alternatives beyond the subset mention.

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