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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: no auth required, effectively no error paths, and a security-relevant redaction guarantee ('booleans like hasAppJwt — values never echoed'). That is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Extremely dense with zero filler, and the highest-value fact (what state is reported) is front-loaded. The trailing 'Auth/Errors/Related' fragments are terse to the point of being slightly clipped, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the right move. Combined with the auth and error disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call this zero-arg tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; per the baseline rule this is a 4. The description instead describes the response fields, which is useful but belongs to a different dimension.

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 ('Report the current Ethora MCP session state') and then enumerates exactly what is reported (API URL, auth mode, credential presence flags, appId/agentId, hosted/sessionId). It is immediately distinguishable from the large sibling set, which is dominated by create/update/list operations.

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?

'Related: ethora-doctor for an active connectivity check' routes the agent to the alternative and implies the division of labor (passive snapshot vs. active probe). It does not spell out an explicit 'use this when...' trigger, but for a no-arg status tool the context is sufficiently clear.

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