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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool will not work because no route answers. It does not specify the exact error response, but the unavailability notice is a significant disclosure beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical unavailability notice followed by the redirect. No wasted words.

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, non-functional tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides enough to prevent misuse. It could mention the exact error or a sibling tool name for the alternative, but it is largely 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the empty schema.

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 states the tool is unavailable ('no route answers GET /api/operator') and points to an alternative endpoint. It is specific about the missing route and distinguishes itself from real-data tools, but it never describes a functional verb+resource action, so it only partially fulfills the purpose-clarity burden.

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 tells the agent not to use this tool ('Not available') and directs to GET /api/agent/me for the real kernels, devices and in-flight jobs. The alternative is an HTTP route rather than a sibling MCP tool name, which slightly reduces actionability.

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