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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaning beyond them: the row schema, the available-vs-loadable gating semantics, and that the source of truth is the registered catalog + MCP_EXPOSED_TOOLS rather than training data. This is exactly the extra context that helps an agent trust and interpret the result.

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 core purpose and row shape before the caveats, and almost every sentence earns its place. It is dense and long for a read tool, with some overlap between the availability explanation and the filters paragraph, so it falls just short of fully tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return: it enumerates every row field and explains the enum values and the -1/null sentinels. An agent can interpret the response and the gating model without further help.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description roughly mirrors the filters (kind=READ|MUTATION, mcpOnly, availableOnly) but adds the useful nuance that availableOnly means the caller's plan currently enables the tool, tying the flag to the plan-gate concept.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the live MCP tool surface for the calling org.' It explicitly scopes to the org's catalog rather than the caller's held tools, which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like whoami (identity) and get_plan_features (plan data).

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 when-to-use ('Together they let you predict a 402/403'), the action required for a state ('loadable' rows require calling load_tools with that category first), and names a companion tool ('Pairs with whoami'). It also warns about the reporting distinction between availableNow and totalTools.

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