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

The annotations already mark it read-only and not open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it provides user-facing steps, supports two routes, and requires authentication for the MCP-server route. It does not explicitly state the return format, but with annotations and no output schema this is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and the two methods it covers.

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 zero-parameter, read-only instructional tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool provides and the two ways a user can run an agent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly states the tool provides steps for running a Finch agent, naming the resource and action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_finch_agent or search_finch_agents, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives two ways to run an agent (browser or authenticated MCP server) and notes the browser is fastest, which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling get/search tools or when not to use it.

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