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

Despite having annotations, the description adds important behavioral nuance: the meaning of each returned status ('new', 'unchanged', 'mutated'), that 'unchanged' is not a trust verdict, and that a first-ever 'new' result only establishes a baseline. It also discloses the API key requirement. This goes well beyond the annotations 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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, usage, return format, semantic caveats, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly longer than strictly needed, but no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: status values, per-tool changes list with previous and current hashes. It also covers input modes, auth requirement, and nuance about trust. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The tool description reinforces the mutual exclusivity ('Supply either server_url or manifest') and clarifies that server_url is fetched server-side while manifest is for local/private servers. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though the schema already carried most of the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect when an MCP server changes its tool manifest after you adopted it.' It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on the 'rug pull' scenario and post-adoption manifest integrity, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear usage context for each input path: 'Pass server_url and Kamy fetches that third-party server's manifest itself, or pass manifest when you already hold it (local or private servers).' This explicitly tells the agent when to choose each parameter. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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