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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the capability boundary (unsigned construction only; no custody, no signing, no unrestricted submit), which tells the agent what this MCP will never do. It could go further on what the returned content actually covers.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no waste, and the calling instruction ('Read first') is placed early. It reads as fragments rather than clean prose, but every word earns its place.

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 parameterless help/policy tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing what content is returned and how it relates to onboarding_help, which is a gap worth closing for a tool the agent is told to read first.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool 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 identifies the tool as a 'Security and product boundary for this MCP,' which tells the agent it returns policy/scope information rather than performing an action. However, there is no verb+resource phrasing and it never clarifies how it differs from a sibling like memeswap_onboarding_help, so the agent must infer that this one is the policy precondition doc.

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?

'Read first' is an explicit sequencing directive that tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to all others. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when this can be skipped (e.g., versus onboarding_help), so it is implied-but-not-complete guidance.

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