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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns MCP/REST/A2A entry points and zero-spend safety constraints, which clarifies the read-only nature of the returned data. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits, but the parameterless introspection context makes those less critical.

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?

A single 13-word sentence front-loads the verb and the two concrete content categories. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of the title.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must tell the agent what it will get back. It names the two content categories, which is adequate for a zero-parameter introspection tool, though 'entry points' is somewhat vague (protocol names vs. actual endpoints).

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: supported MCP/REST/A2A entry points and zero-spend safety constraints. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling capability tools like find_capability, register_capability, and sync_official_mcp_registry, which focus on searching, registering, or syncing capabilities rather than listing connection entry points.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_external_integrations or find_capability. The description states what it returns but not the conditions or context for using it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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