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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the password is never returned and that the tool does not change anything, though the latter largely reinforces the annotations.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with the primary return behavior front-loaded, followed by security behavior and sibling routing. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and a fully documented one-parameter schema, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what is returned, that the password is excluded, and which sibling tools to use for related tasks. No output schema is present, but the return fields are named in the description.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully with a 100% schema description coverage and an enum value describing the operation. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the overall tool purpose, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns the FTP connection details of the active site, and it enumerates the returned fields (host, port, user name, password-set status). It also clearly distinguishes the tool from files_read and apps_read ftp_list, so an agent can identify its purpose 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?

It explicitly routes adjacent needs: site files are read with files_read, and server-environment FTP accounts are listed with apps_read ftp_list. It also states that the tool does not change anything, which excludes mutation use cases, leaving little ambiguity about when to call this tool.

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