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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the important behavioral detail that credential values are never echoed, only their presence via booleans like hasAppJwt. This is critical for an agent to avoid expecting sensitive data in the output. It also notes that errors are 'effectively none' and that no authentication is required, which are not captured in annotations. This goes beyond the structured data.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose ('Report the current Ethora MCP session state') and then lists the specific items reported in a single sentence. The additional lines about auth, errors, and related tool are brief and to the point. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool returns, mentions that no auth is required, and anticipates that errors are negligible. It also suggests an alternative for connectivity issues. Given the simplicity of the tool, the only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the output format beyond the listed fields, but given there is no output schema, the description does a good job.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It does, however, mention the booleans (hasAppJwt) that will be present in the output, which indirectly informs the agent about the kind of data it can expect. Since there are no parameters, the description fulfills the requirement by clearly stating the tool's zero-input nature.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting the current Ethora MCP session state. It enumerates the specific pieces of information returned (configured API URL, auth mode, credential presence, appId/agentId, hosted/sessionId). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ethora-doctor, which is an active connectivity check, making it clear that this tool is for status reporting only.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect the current session state. It implicitly suggests it is a read-only diagnostic tool. It mentions a related tool, ethora-doctor, for active connectivity checks, which helps an agent choose between the two. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you need to modify configuration), but the distinction is implied.

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