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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the v1 limitation that only REVIEW or UNVERIFIED are produced, and clarifies that UNVERIFIED should be treated as human review required. It remains slightly vague about error behavior or access requirements, but the advisory nature is clear.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or repetition; each sentence adds new value (purpose, return shape, limitations, usage guidance).

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return object (directive, dimensions, freshness) and the v1 limitation. It omits details about what 'dimensions' and 'freshness' mean, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both server_id and tool_name. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns an advisory verdict object for a specific tool on an MCP server, listing the directive values. It also distinguishes itself from the in-path gate and implies a distinct role among sibling tools by being pre-invocation advisory.

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?

Explicitly says this is a pre-invocation advisory screen, indicating when to use it. It also states what it is not (the in-path gate), and instructs agents on how to interpret UNVERIFIED, giving clear action guidance.

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