isitme

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns an independent cached probe with 7-day reachability, recent tool-list changes, and a likely cause of failure, implying results are observed not authored. It doesn't disclose freshness/latency or rate limits beyond 'latest', so it stops short of full disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition and the diagnostic framing; the colloquial opener 'Is it me or is it them?' earns its place by telegraphing the diagnosis purpose, though it is slightly less information-dense than the rest.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (status, OAuth flow, 7-day reachability, tool-list changes, likely cause), which is enough to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around how the two identified failure modes and 'reason' values interact, but nothing essential is missing for calling it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g., URL-vs-name precedence when both are supplied, or how 'reason' affects the probe), so it does not go beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (probe/check) and resource (a remote MCP server) and spells out the exact result categories it produces (up / auth required / down). It is functionally distinct from find_servers (discovery) and report_outcome (reporting), so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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 explicit, concrete triggers: on connection error, 401/403, timeout, or missing tool, and proactively before adding a server. The failure taxonomy maps directly to the situations an agent will encounter, leaving little to inference.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered and the description is not contradicting it. It adds real context that results are annotated with last-probe status and come from the official registry, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or registry staleness.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the what/where front-loaded and the usage hint trailing. Nothing repeats the schema or could be deleted without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level by naming the per-server probe status. Combined with the live_only schema hint it is nearly sufficient, though it does not describe ordering, volume, or the shape of a result entry.

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 coverage is 50%: live_only is documented in the schema, but the required 'query' parameter has no schema description at all. The description compensates by stating the query matches against name or description, which is genuine semantic value the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource (remote MCP servers) with the source scoped to 'the official registry' and the added detail that each result carries its latest probe status. This is far more than a restated name. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from check_server, which an agent could plausibly confuse with discovery.

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?

'Use to pick a server that is actually up' implies the intended moment of use but names no alternative and states no exclusions. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer check_server over find_servers, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the report is shared with other agents to reveal failures the probe misses. However, it says nothing about whether reports are public/anonymous, whether they are idempotent or updatable, or any rate/permission constraints — meaningful gaps for a write-type reporting tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the usage condition is front-loaded before the rationale. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not explain returns, and it covers the what, when, and why adequately for a simple report tool. It still leave gaps on `check_id` semantics and on whether the report can be amended, which matters for a tool that other agents consume.

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 coverage is 25% (only `note` is documented), so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It only loosely implies that `url` identifies the server and `worked` is the outcome; `check_id` is never explained — notably, that it links this report back to the prior check_server call is left to inference.

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 gives a specific verb (report) and resource (the outcome of a call to a server, keyed by url), and it explicitly frames this as the step that follows check_server. An agent can distinguish this from check_server (a probe) and find_servers (discovery) without opening any schema.

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?

"After check_server" gives a clear sequencing condition for when to invoke it, and "report whether your call to that server then worked" implies both success and failure are in scope. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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