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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent that the tool only analyzes and reports (no mutation implied), enumerates the exact areas checked (serverInfo, transport, capabilities, authentication, semver, URL, tools entries), and states the return type as a full error and warning list. This is strong coverage for a validation tool.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states purpose and timing, the second enumerates checks and output. Every clause adds operational value, and the most decision-relevant information ('before you publish') is front-loaded. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 single-parameter validator with no output schema, the description adequately covers input context, validation scope, and expected return (error and warning list). It could go slightly further by describing the structure of the error/warning list, but the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the single 'card' parameter is 100%, listing accepted types and forms entrepreneurially. The description adds meaning by naming the fields and formats that get validated, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'server-card.json content' phrasing. This is above the baseline of 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('MCP Server Card against SEP-1649'), and details the checks it performs (structure and format). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like generate_mcp_server_card, audit_mcp_server_security, and score_mcp_server_trust by focusing on spec compliance and pre-publication validation.

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 phrase 'before you publish it' gives a clear context for when this tool should be used, and the description's focus on missing/malformed fields distinguishes it from security audits or trust scoring. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage window is clear.

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