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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it reveals that some listed features exist only in the dashboard (i.e., not callable via MCP) and that links are project-scoped when a project ID is supplied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the parameter behavior and the read-only note. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

A simple, zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. Scope, the single parameter's effect, and the read-only nature are all covered; only an explicit 'call this first to discover features' cue is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for projectId — and it does, stating the parameter is optional and that it changes the returned links to be project-specific. The UUID format/pattern is left to the schema, which is fine.

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: returns supported MCP feature areas and tools, plus dashboard/editor links. This is clearly a discovery/introspection tool distinct from every sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent would infer this is the feature-discovery call — and the note that an optional project ID supplies project-specific links hints at a conditional call. But there is no explicit 'use this when / don't use this for' guidance or statement about when the project-scoped variant matters.

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