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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: admin_token must match the server MCP_ADMIN_TOKEN and is disabled when unset, plus an explicit statement that the tool is never public. This goes beyond the 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and restriction. It is efficient and free of filler, though the terminology mismatch ('jobs' vs 'audits' vs 'Briefs') slightly detracts from structural clarity.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers auth and access scope but does not describe the return format or clarify what 'jobs' refers to. The terminology ambiguity leaves some gaps, though the annotations handle the safety profile.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for admin_token by specifying it must match the server token and is disabled when unset, which is more detail than the schema's 'Admin token (MCP_ADMIN_TOKEN)'. This extra semantic context justifies a 4.

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 states 'Admin only: list recent jobs', which is a clear verb and resource, and the admin restriction helps distinguish it from public tools. However, the term 'jobs' conflicts with the tool name 'list_audits' and the title 'List recent Briefs (admin)', creating terminology inconsistency that prevents a perfect score.

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 access context ('Admin only', 'Never open to the public') and the token requirement, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like get_audit or get_audit_result. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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