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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that it never calls target business tools or spends funds, that reports persist and are public by link, and that internal_test excludes scans from public view. This adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, clarifying the actual side effects.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers constraints, output, and caveats. Each sentence adds value without redundancy; the length is appropriate given the tool's side effects and multiple usage nuances.

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?

It covers purpose, usage constraints, behavioral side effects, output highlights, and the alternative tool. Since an output schema exists, the description sufficiently equips an agent to call it correctly without needing more detail.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: mcp_url must be a public URL without credentials/query/fragment, internal_test=true is for owner/CI validation and excludes from public scans, and source is a self-reported referral bucket. This fully covers parameter semantics.

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 action ('Create a free public report') and the resource ('MCP tool-description routing collisions'), and immediately clarifies the scope by saying it only reads discovery metadata. It also differentiates from the sibling tool by pointing to get_selection_report for existing reports, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For an existing report use get_selection_report.' It also provides specific usage constraints for the mcp_url parameter ('public HTTP(S) URL without credentials, query or fragment') and for internal_test ('owner/CI validation ... excluded from public scans'), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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