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

Beyond the annotations it adds real behavioral context: 'Read-only: it lists, never calls a tool' clarifies the blast radius, sign-in detection is described, and it discloses billing semantics ($0.01/call, first 25 free, failed calls free, repeats are not free) which explains the idempotentHint=false. Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability inventory in the first sentence, then usage, then example, then pricing. Mildly redundant: the pricing/per-call cost idea appears twice ('Price $0.01/call...' and 'each call is charged, so repeats are not free'), and the closing 'Reads or computes only and changes nothing' repeats the earlier 'Read-only'.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: it lists the exact fields an agent will get back. Combined with auth behavior, safety profile, and cost, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 100% and there is a single required param, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful meaning not in the schema by providing a working example value (url=https://mcp.deepwiki.com/mcp) and specifying that the URL must be the streamable-HTTP endpoint.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a remote MCP server over streamable HTTP') and enumerates exactly what is returned: initialize handshake, name/version/protocol/capabilities, auth challenge, tool list with schemas, and prompt/resource counts. Nothing in the long sibling list is confusable with this tool.

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?

Gives explicit use cases: 'vet an MCP server before adding it to an agent, or check your own after a deploy', plus a concrete example URL. It does not name an alternative (e.g. http_status or openapi_summary) or state exclusions, so it stops short of the top band.

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