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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds concrete behavioral details: 'no execution', 'under a second', and the exact miss response format ('not_available: unevaluated'). This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose; second gives usage context; third explains edge-case behavior. Every sentence 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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, presence of output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further clarification.

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 a clear description and example for server_ref. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads a server's published behavioral grade from polygraph.so, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('server's grade'). It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as a pre-flight check before installing an MCP server, contrasting with list_servers or request_grade.

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 explicitly says 'pre-flight check before recommending or installing an MCP server', indicating when to use. It also describes the miss behavior and return value ('not_available with next steps'), but does not explicitly define when not to use or name alternatives.

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