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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it inspects without executing target tools or reading resources, enforces a 100,000-UTF-8-byte cap, and returns jobs that must be polled via get_scan. This adds real operational context that the annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict them.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and safety boundary, the second adds the byte limit and the get_scan polling workflow. Every clause earns its place, and nothing redundantly restates the title or schema.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts: target kind, metadata-only behavior, byte cap, and result retrieval. It leaves some ambiguity about what a 'public job' contains and what config overrides affect, but the output schema and sibling tool name fill most of that gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description's 'public HTTPS' qualifier is already present in the mcp_server_url schema description, and it adds no additional meaning for the nested config object. This is adequate but not additive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a public HTTPS MCP server's listed tool, prompt and resource metadata.' It clearly distinguishes itself from likely siblings by stating that it does not execute tools or read resources, so an agent can separate scan_server from scan_file, scan_text, and scan_url without opening their schemas.

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 gives clear context: use this for public HTTPS MCP servers, inspect only metadata, and expect an async result by polling get_scan. It names the correct follow-up sibling, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer scan_file, scan_text, or scan_url instead. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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