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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description correctly reinforces 'changes nothing.' Beyond that it discloses non-obvious behavior: the tool list is a snapshot that may be stale, and the `bridge-catalogue:` line in results is the surest staleness signal. It does not cover error modes or exact return field names, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then staleness detection, then the no-side-effects note, then sibling routing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the closing alternatives sentence and the toolCount explanation overlap slightly in emphasis.

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 carries return-value burden and does so at a high level (version, toolCount, the catalogue line). For a trivial zero-side-effect introspection tool this is sufficient; only the exact response shape and the handling of the optional `app` argument remain unstated.

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%, so the optional `app` parameter is fully documented by the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about `app` semantics — and its claim 'Takes no arguments' is inaccurate given the optional app parameter, which mildly undercuts rather than helps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: report the Bridge MCP server version and exposed tool count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_started (what Bridge does) and list_apps (which app the connection acts on), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition (diagnosing a stale tool list) and states the remedy (tell the user to reconnect) rather than concluding a capability is missing. It also names two alternative tools for adjacent questions, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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