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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact protocol steps performed (initialize, tools/list), the absence of credential requirements, a concrete timeout, and the returned fields including the token-cost measurement with its exact-vs-estimate fallback behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and tightly packed, but the single long sentence stacks multiple parentheticals, which slightly taxes readability. Every clause still earns its place, so only a minor deduction.

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 must explain return values, and it does: status, protocol, tools, and token cost with exact/estimate qualification. For a one-parameter probe tool this is complete.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as an HTTPS URL of the MCP endpoint. The description adds only marginal semantics ('no credentials'), so the baseline 3 for a fully covered single-param schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it connects to an MCP server URL live, performs initialize and tools/list, and reports status, protocol, tools, and token cost. It explicitly distinguishes itself from lookup_server for registry servers, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (lookup_server) and the condition that selects it ('For registry servers prefer lookup_server'), which is the primary routing decision for this tool. It also discloses operational constraints (no credentials, 10 s timeout) that govern when the live probe is viable.

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