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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting that sessions are 'redacted' and that data is scoped to the 'authenticated owner wallet', which highlights privacy and authorization 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 description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and immediately states the subject and scope. Every word adds value with no redundancy or 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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the privacy redaction, and the owner scope. It lacks details about return format or pagination, but for a read-only list tool with strong annotations, this is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to document, the description need not add parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resources ('MCP consents and redacted active sessions') plus the scope ('authenticated owner wallet'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like mcp.access.revoke_consent and mcp.audit.list.

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 implies usage context by naming consents and active sessions, suggesting it is for reviewing current access before revocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus mcp.access.revoke_consent or other list tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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