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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds two pieces of context beyond that: the result may be empty ("if any") and the call should precede other work. It does not describe the shape of the returned instructions, but for a zero-argument read this is a modest and appropriate addition.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the functional statement comes before the imperative ordering hint. Every clause carries information.

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-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and what to expect (possibly nothing). A brief note that the returned text is meant to shape subsequent tool use would close the last gap.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 verb and resource: it returns the MCP server's instructions. That is clearly distinct from the legal-research siblings such as get_case or search_laws, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby get_platform_info, which an agent might see as overlapping.

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?

"Always call first" gives an unambiguous ordering directive that tells the agent exactly when to invoke it relative to every other tool. It stops short of saying what to do afterwards or whether a re-call is ever needed, but the when-to-use signal is explicit.

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