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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is a safe read or a mutating action. The '401' hint is too vague to inform the agent of any behavioral traits.

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 under-specified rather than concise. While it is short, it lacks the necessary content to be useful, so the brevity is not a virtue here.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It omits what the tool does, when to use it, what the inputs mean, and what to expect from invoking it.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to either 'session_id' or 'error_detail'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but without any elaboration (e.g., expected format, purpose beyond the name), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Shortcut PAT/401 → mcp-wiring' is cryptic and fails to state a clear verb+resource. It does not explain what the tool does or how it relates to fixing GitHub MCP 401 errors, leaving the purpose essentially missing.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is also no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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