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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: v1 advisory, conformance monitored but not enforced, and verdicts may be UNVERIFIED if not yet probed. This goes beyond the simple 'assess' operation and informs the agent of potential limitations, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or return format beyond referencing a sibling.

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, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and caveats. It is front-loaded and concise, with no filler. The reference to check_tool_trust is efficient and avoids repeating verdict shapes.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the aggregated nature, the use case, and the advisory/UNVERIFIED limitations. The only minor gap is not detailing the verdict shape itself, but it points to a sibling for that, which is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100% (server_id described as 'Server slug to assess'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description provides context about what the assessment covers but not new semantics for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema coverage.

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 performs an aggregated pre-flight trust assessment across all tools on an MCP server, using a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('server trust'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling check_tool_trust by noting the same verdict shape but aggregate scope, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to use for 'is THIS server worth integrating?' decisions, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It mentions check_tool_trust with 'same verdict shape,' implying a distinction, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives like compare_servers. Thus, it has clear context but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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