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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Print' verb aligns with these. The description adds behavioral context about the tool being a first-step diagnostic for authentication issues, which is helpful beyond the bare annotation flags. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Print step-by-step instructions') and includes a clear usage trigger. Every word earns its place; there is 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what context it addresses (authentication/credentials). There are no missing pieces given the tool's simplicity.

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 and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. With zero params, the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Print step-by-step instructions for using Coal MCP' from multiple clients. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pay_merchant or create_checkout by being a meta-level setup guide focused on authentication and usage setup.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this FIRST if you are unsure how to authenticate or which credentials to provide.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the conditional 'if unsure' implies a clear boundary, and the tool has no direct sibling alternatives.

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