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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read-only factual query ('Facts, not a score') and specifies what data is returned (dead/dormant counts), avoiding any misleading claims. No annotation contradiction exists since annotations are absent.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and tone. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the return type (dead/dormant counts) and the factual nature. Could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., JSON structure), but not critical for a simple lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one well-documented parameter ('id' with format example). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., the context of 'from the register'), but the schema already clearly explains the parameter. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves an MCP server's dependencies and their mortality state (dead/dormant counts), distinguishing it as a factual data retrieval tool rather than a scoring tool like trust_score. It uses specific verbs ('dependencies and their mortality state') and explicitly differentiates itself from trust_score.

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 implies usage for inspecting dependency health, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings (schema_history, trust_score) or when not to use it. The phrase 'Facts, not a score' hints at contrast with trust_score, but lacks direct alternatives or conditions.

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