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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive semantics. The description adds useful behavioral context: it never requests vulnerability notes, instructs the AI to keep them local, and surfaces only a compact subset of vuln_load_context. This goes beyond annotation basics without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant phrasing. The privacy note is slightly tangential but adds valuable context without bloating the text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what to expect (cross-server handoff routes and fallback workflows) and its relationship to vuln_load_context. It could better describe the exact format of the returned routes, but it's adequate for a simple routing 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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because no input schema is required.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning cross-server handoff routes for the Vuln domain, with a specific use case ('when this MCP server can't fulfill a request') and distinguishes it from similar sibling tools via the domain prefix and by referencing it as a compact subset of vuln_load_context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when this MCP server can't fulfill a request') and mentions an alternative (vuln_load_context) as a fuller context source. However, it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it beyond implying that full context should come from load_context.

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