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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the report contains and that it is free, but says nothing about output size, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements for a potentially large 'full' report.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the verb+scope and uses a colon list to enumerate deliverable contents; the trailing 'Free.' is terse and informative. No wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (hashes, evidence, change history, transparency proof). The main gap is the undocumented include_history parameter and no note on report size or limits.

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 50%: server_id is well documented in the schema (with its source in scan_search/mcp_server_check), but include_history has no description anywhere and only a default. The description's mention of 'change history' tangentially relates to include_history without explaining how to toggle it, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope ('Full report for one MCP server') and enumerates the report contents (tool definitions with hashes, findings with evidence, change history, transparency-log proof). This is clearly distinguishable from the listing behavior of scan_search and the narrower scan_changes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: once you have a server_id, this returns its full report. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over scan_changes, scan_rescan, or mcp_server_check, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The 'Free' note is a mild cost hint rather than a routing rule.

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