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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: results are pre-measured facts from MCP Station's latest daily check rather than a live verdict, and no tools are executed. It omits details like the 10-name cap and behavior for unknown names, keeping it short of a 5.

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 usage trigger, then the return payload, then the disclaimers and the pointer to search_servers. The middle sentence is a dense parenthetical list but each item is informative; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating what comes back for each server. The main remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid or unknown registry names, the 10-name limit), which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 must carry the parameter meaning, and it does emphasize 'each exact registry name', which is the key constraint. However, it never mentions the array form or the maximum of 10 names, leaving part of the parameter's semantics to the schema alone.

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 concrete verb and resource: one call returns, per exact registry name, the latest daily check with reachability, auth, 7/30-day success, response time, risk, definition size, 7-day changes, and shared-definition detection. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_server, get_changes, and check_overlap.

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?

Gives explicit triggers (right before connecting or reconnecting, or when a connected server starts failing) and explicitly routes discovery to search_servers first. It also states a negative condition by clarifying that it runs no new check, so an agent knows not to expect fresh probing.

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