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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals that this is a reference/catalog resource that may be substantial ('full tool catalog', multiple topics), which is useful context, but it never states that the operation is a read-only lookup, roughly how large the response is, or what form the guide takes.

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 tight sentences: the capability statement first, then the call-to-action with an inline example. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant instruction (call first when unsure) is front-loaded after the capability line.

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 zero-required-parameter orientation tool with one enum, the description covers purpose, coverage, and routing well. The remaining gap is what the caller gets back (format/size) and there is no output schema to compensate, but that is a minor omission for a documentation lookup.

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 enum parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by mapping topic names to actual content (pricing, limits, workflows, tool catalog), telling the agent which enum value yields which information.

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 resource (FortFi MCP capability guide) and enumerates its scope: onboarding paths, pricing, limits, workflows, and the full tool catalog. This clearly separates it from every sibling tool, which are concrete read/write operations rather than meta-documentation.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call first when unsure which tool to use') and even a concrete routing example (market research routes to discover_tokens rather than the Explore UI REST route). What it lacks is guidance on when the tool is unnecessary, i.e. when the agent is already certain which sibling to call.

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