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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is partly covered; the description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not: the ~6 hour crawl cadence that this tool bypasses, and an authorization/eligibility requirement. It omits cost, rate-limiting, and what happens on repeated calls.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing benefit, followed by the eligibility gate. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 one-parameter trigger tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what happens, the cadence it replaces, and who may call it. Missing only the return shape / whether it is async, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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 already documented as 'mcp_... id or endpoint URL'. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Probe the server immediately') with a clear timing scope, distinguishing it from the automatic crawl. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling scan_server, leaving the agent to guess which entry point to choose.

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 condition for use ('immediately instead of waiting for the next crawl') plus an eligibility constraint ('For the verified owner or Pro organizations'). It stops short of naming any alternative tool or stating explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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