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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the result is cryptographically signed, enumerates the returned signals (grade, 7-day uptime, connect time, sign-in mode, tool count, rug-pull detection, reasons), and tells the caller how to validate authenticity via /.well-known/annalist-key.json. This signing/verification guidance is genuinely additive behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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 value proposition ('Free') and the timing cue ('Before connecting'), then a compact enumeration of the returned data. The field list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the check reveals; minor redundancy between title and description.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what comes back and how to verify it. It does not describe failure modes (unknown server, unsigned response) or freshness, leaving a small gap for a verification tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description's 'by registry name (io.github.user/server) or URL' restates and clarifies the either/or selection but adds little syntax the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema carries the detail.

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 a specific verb (verify/get a signed check) and resource (an MCP server identified by registry name or URL), and the title reinforces the 'check before connecting' intent. It implicitly separates itself from the service-oriented sibling annalist_verify_service by scoping to MCP servers, but never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

'Before connecting an MCP server' gives a clear triggering context for invocation, and the free/signing framing establishes trust prerequisites. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus annalist_verify_service), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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