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

The description states 'Performs no writes,' which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=false annotation. This is a serious inconsistency: the annotation implies the tool may modify state while the description asserts it never writes. Because the description contradicts structured metadata, it earns the minimum score and should be flagged.

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 three sentences with no filler: it states the action, the return value, the intended precursor role, and the non-writing behavior. Key information is front-loaded before secondary details.

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 low-complexity single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and partially describes returns ('authorization endpoint and required scopes when supported'). However, it does not explain what happens when OAuth Dynamic Client Registration is not supported, and the annotation contradiction undermines the reliability of the tool's behavioral contract.

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 single parameter mcp_server_url has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as 'URL of the MCP server to probe for OAuth support.' The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action (probe an MCP server URL), a resource (MCP server), and a concrete outcome (discover OAuth Dynamic Client Registration support, return authorization endpoint and scopes). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling 'probeMcpServer', so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context by naming the endpoints this tool is a precursor to ('/v2/teams/:team_id/connections/oauth/mcp/start' and '/v2/teams/:team_id/connections'). However, it does not mention alternatives like probeMcpServer or state when not to use it, so no exclusions are provided.

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