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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the Admin authorization requirement and the semantic detail that the address shown while off is 'the address it would take', which clarifies the returned value's meaning.

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 content is front-loaded (what the tool returns) followed by the prerequisite. It is a single dense sentence plus a short sentence, with no wasted clauses, though the colon list makes it slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains (on/off state, address, write permission, login connection, access links, sign-in status), which compensates for the absent output schema. Combined with the Admin note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return formatting details are missing.

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%, and the single 'project' parameter is well documented in the schema (slug format, when it can be omitted). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (shows) and resource (a project's end-user MCP server) and enumerates the fields returned, making it clearly a read/config-inspection tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like enable_mcp_server or create_mcp_access_link, but the enumeration of state ('whether it is on') implies viewing rather than mutating.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Needs project Admin') which is useful context for when the call will succeed, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or naming of alternatives. The read-only nature is implied by the title and field list rather than stated.

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