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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive behavioral detail of what is linted (alg:none, weak secrets, leaked keys), but says nothing about the response shape or severities, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 compact sentences, with the audit scope front-loaded. The opening phrase restates the annotated title almost verbatim, which is mild redundancy, and the endpoint parenthetical is low-value for an MCP agent.

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 single-parameter read-only linter this is mostly adequate, and annotations cover the safety semantics. However, with no output schema the description should at least sketch what an audit returns, and the token-vs-JWK-set input ambiguity is left unresolved.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the burden. The description's mention of 'JWK sets' actually introduces mild ambiguity, since the only parameter is a singular 'token' — it doesn't clarify whether a JSON JWK set blob is accepted in that field.

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 gives a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('JWT tokens and JWK sets') plus the concrete checks performed (alg:none, weak secrets, leaked keys). It is distinguishable from siblings like secret_scanner or security_headers by naming the RFC 8725 linting focus, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer that this is the tool for auditing a JWT, but nothing tells it how this differs from adjacent security tools such as the secret scanner.

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