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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns a token that must be published at a specific well-known path, and it enumerates what verification unlocks. It does not say whether the token expires or what happens if the file is missing, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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 core action and artifact before the benefit list and prerequisite. The benefits enumeration (badge, rescans, alerts, control) is slightly promotional but does tell the agent why the user would invoke this, so little is wasted.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return value (the token to publish) and the auth prerequisite. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter claim-initiation tool; the remaining gap is the absent link to scan_claim_verify as the required completion step.

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% and the single 'server' parameter is fully described in the schema as 'mcp_... id or endpoint URL'. The description only adds an implicit constraint (the server must already be listed in Privi Scan) and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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: initiating ownership proof for an MCP server listed in Privi Scan, plus the concrete artifact it produces (a token to publish at /.well-known/privi-scan.txt). The word 'Start' signals it is step one of a two-step flow, though it never names scan_claim_verify outright, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 real prerequisite ('Needs the org key'), which is useful forward guidance, but offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never points to scan_claim_verify as the required follow-up or to scan_owner_listing as the way to check an existing claim. Usage is inferable from the description rather than stated.

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