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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the content an agent will get back—free vs. gated tools, what each replaces, and data provenance—which helps the agent decide whether to call it. It stops short of describing format or size, hence not a 5.

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?

A single sentence listing the four things the tool returns, front-loaded with the core scope ('what this MCP server exposes'). No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining the return content, and it enumerates four concrete categories. It leaves the shape/format of the response unspecified, but an agent has enough to know whether and why to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to, and does not, add parameter guidance.

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 the resource precisely: a self-description of the server's toolset, including which tools are free vs. sign-in, what each replaces, and data provenance. It is distinguishable from siblings like mzizi_get_architecture or mzizi_get_tokens, which cover specific content rather than the whole surface. It falls short of 5 only because the framing is a noun phrase rather than a verb-first statement of what the tool does.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is an orientation/discovery call, but the description never says 'call this first' or when to prefer it over mzizi_fundi or mzizi_get_architecture. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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