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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that remote servers are live-connected and analyzed for tool-poisoning and capabilities, checks the backing repo, and returns a score with grade. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but it reveals the key live-connect action, which is important.

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 well-organized: main purpose first, then accepted inputs, then behavior, then usage instruction. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the return value, accepted inputs, and remote behavior, which is enough to call the tool. However, it is ambiguous about how registry names and GitHub repos are processed (only remote servers are said to live-connect), leaving a gap in the behavioral model.

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 documents the three accepted target formats with 100% coverage, and the description repeats them without adding new syntax details. It adds some context by noting that remote servers trigger live connection, but this is more behavioral than semantic.

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 checks if an MCP server is safe to install and returns a trust score, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling scan_mcp_server, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is 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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'Call BEFORE installing or recommending any MCP server.' This is clear when-to-use context. It does not mention scan_mcp_server or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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