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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing privacy scope ("Counts only, no agent identities"), the no-charge and no-routing-impact behavior, and that owner_key gates extra fields. It stops short of describing return shape or rate/refresh behavior, but it exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the use-condition, which is good, but the middle is a single long clause-chained sentence packing many metric types together. It is denser than it needs to be, and the metric list could be trimmed or bulleted without losing meaning.

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 must carry return-value meaning, and it does list what comes back for both the public and owner_key cases, including the fallback of how to verify ownership. It lacks anything on response size/pagination or the exact shape, leaving a small gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline: it explains that owner_key (returned by claim_mcp_server) unlocks things like the words agents used, servers picked instead, failure reasons, uptime and tool changes, and that the 7/30-day window scopes the category counts. That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource: it reports how agents search for and behave around a given MCP server on 7Maps, enumerating the metric families returned. It is clearly a server-owner analytics tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like my_7maps_usage or my_server_report, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Use this when the person you work for owns an MCP server on the 7Maps map..." gives a clear triggering condition, and the owner_key branch tells the agent what to do when ownership is unverified, pointing at claim_mcp_server. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion against adjacent usage/admin siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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