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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it explains that this is a non-executing health check, that it probes initialization and tool listing, and that it does not speak to data freshness. It could add detail about the short-lived cache or response shape, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and immediately add the critical scoping limitation. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 one-parameter health-check tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and its limitations. It lacks an explicit description of the return shape, but the stated purpose sufficiently implies per-MCP initialization and tool-listing status.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is already documented well in the schema, including its default and purpose. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficient.

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: it checks whether each canonical BrunoSan MCP initializes and lists tools. It further clarifies this is a capability-plane health check, which separates it from the intelligence-execution scope of sibling 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?

The description clearly frames when to use this tool: for capability-plane health checks only. It also provides exclusions, stating it does not execute protected intelligence tools and makes no claims about data freshness, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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