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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (TypeScript declarations) and the fact that results are limited to this connection's reachable tools, but it pushes the 'full contract' off to server instructions rather than disclosing behavior directly.

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 discover-tools purpose, then the return format. No filler and no repetition.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully states the TypeScript-declaration form and the connection-scoped result set. The only weakness is leaning on external server instructions for the calling contract.

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 100% — the single 'query' parameter is fully documented as a case-insensitive substring match with omit-to-return-all semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find the VoiceLabs MCP tools this connection can reach.' It also says what comes back (TypeScript declarations callable from execute_typescript), which distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so not a 5.

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 only implied via 'to call from execute_typescript' and the connection-scoping phrase; there is no explicit 'use this when you don't know which tool to call' or when-not guidance. It defers the contract to server instructions rather than stating the selection context itself.

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