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

The description says to 'burn via POST /v1/session/cert,' implying a consuming or writing operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. No additional side-effect, auth, or reversibility context is provided.

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 short and front-loaded with the key decision signal ('LEGACY', 'OFF TABLE as primary buy') and alternatives. The second sentence is packed with useful legacy status but uses cryptic jargon ('burn via POST...') that reduces clarity, though every clause earns its place.

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?

The description reads more like a deprecation notice than a definition of what the MCP tool does with agent_id. Despite having rich annotations and an output schema, it leaves the core function ambiguous and does not explain the tool's own behavior or return semantics.

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 input schema fully covers the single required agent_id parameter (100% schema coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra semantics about how agent_id should be used or formatted, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'LEGACY non-wealth job meter' and says 'Endpoints remain; burn via POST /v1/session/cert + verify still works,' but it never clearly states a verb+resource for what invoking this MCP tool does. The closest action, 'burn via POST,' refers to an HTTP endpoint rather than the tool's own behavior.

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?

Explicitly says not to use it as a primary buy and names concrete alternatives: 'Prefer sqlguard_challenge (Exact $100 unlock) or Gateway invoice $299.' It also notes that legacy endpoints remain, giving clear guidance for when it can still be used.

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