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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context beyond those flags: it only uses public metadata, makes no network calls, requires no auth, mutates nothing, does not inspect source code, and does not certify vulnerabilities. These are concrete behavioral boundaries.

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 entire description is one well-front-loaded sentence that states the output, the data sources, the use case, and the key exclusions. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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?

Given the rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's role and limitations thoroughly. The main gap is that the nested risk_scan input object is not semantically described, and no alternative sibling tool is named for comparison, but the tool remains usable enough for an agent with the schema.

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 0% and the description does not explain the risk_scan parameter or its nested properties such as server_name, declared_read_only, requires_authentication, or payment_or_entitlement_required. The phrase 'from tool descriptors, schemas, and registry claims' hints at inputs, but it does not compensate for the undocumented nested object structure.

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 clearly states the tool returns a read-only, public-metadata MCP risk score from tool descriptors, schemas, and registry claims. It uses a specific verb plus resource and defines the scope ('Use before listing, integrating, or wrapping another MCP server'), which separates it from the sibling build/wrap evidence tools.

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?

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before listing, integrating, or wrapping another MCP server.' It also supplies when-not guidance by stating the tool does not fetch network data, require auth, mutate systems, inspect source code, or certify vulnerability status, so the agent knows its limitations.

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