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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the proxy key is returned 'shown once', the return payload is enumerated, and an account key is required. It stops short of noting slug-uniqueness or idempotency consequences of re-calling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the return contract, then the integration detail. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (proxy id, per-customer MCP URL, key). Auth requirement and client wiring are covered. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (duplicate slug, key loss) for a non-idempotent creation tool.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including the dry-run/enforce mode with its default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a hosted okgate proxy in front of an MCP server') with clear scope. The sibling tools (audit export, pricing, policy, spend report) are functionally unrelated, so no differentiation is needed and none is confusingly implied.

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 the situation (you have an MCP server you want to front with a proxy) but never states when to choose this over alternatives or what prerequisite state is required beyond 'Requires an account key'. The client-configuration sentence describes post-creation usage, not when-to-invoke guidance.

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