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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the exact computation (RFC 8785 JCS + sha256 per tool, plus a manifest fingerprint) and the drift-report output when pinned is supplied. It does not go into error behavior or formatting details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense sentences carry purpose, method, optional workflow, and security motivation without redundancy. The most important action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical OWASP reference adds credibility without bloating the text.

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 moderately specialized tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it hashes, and what the pinned parameter enables. It stops short of describing the exact manifest/report shape, but the drift-report semantics (added/removed/changed) are explicit enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a useful clarification that pinned is a previous manifest for drift detection, but it does not materially expand beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 cryptographically fingerprints MCP tool definitions, and it ties that to a concrete security goal ('verify tool descriptions haven't changed'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all domain/verification utilities rather than fingerprinting operations.

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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: to detect changes in tool definitions and to guard against tool poisoning or rug-pull redefinitions. It also explains the optional pinned-manifest workflow for drift detection, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives.

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