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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: it detects silent changes made without a new server version, it is paid per check (pointing to list_paid_tools), and it 'reads the map only' — the cost and silent-change details are the real value here.

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 usage trigger, then capability, then the conditional follow-up, then cost and scope. Dense but every sentence carries information; minor redundancy between 'reads the map only' and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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, and the description does describe the return semantically (whether tools changed, whether risk rose). With 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the only real omission is any mention of the sibling changes_since, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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 server, approved_at, last_trip and license_key are already documented in the schema. The description only lightly gestures at approved_at ('since that date') and adds nothing about license_key or the last_trip reporting payload, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it tells whether an approved MCP server's tools changed since a date and whether risk increased. Very concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling 'changes_since', leaving ambiguity about which change-detection tool applies.

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 a clear trigger ('before reusing an MCP server that a person approved earlier') and a conditional next action ('if the risk went up, ask the person to approve again'). It lacks any exclusion or named alternative such as changes_since, so the routing against siblings is implied rather than explicit.

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