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

Annotation Contradiction: annotations set openWorldHint=true, implying possible real-world side effects beyond the MCP server, while the description explicitly states 'No network requests, production registration, coin spend or external delivery' and 'Discards state.' Although the description itself discloses useful behavior (signed webhook fixture, discarded state), the direct contradiction with openWorldHint forces a score of 1 per rubric.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, scenario list, output, and behavioral constraints with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter, an output schema, and this description, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only completeness gap is the openWorldHint contradiction, which could confuse an agent that weighs annotations more heavily than the description.

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 carries the burden. It lists the three scenario values (healthy, incident, stale_payload) inline, which is exactly what an agent needs to populate the 'scenario' parameter even though the schema only provides a default. It does not detail each scenario's behavior, but output schema and the dry-run nature reduce the need.

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 a specific verb and resource ('run_autonet_sandbox') with a precise purpose: a lifecycle dry run covering healthy, incident, or stale_payload scenarios. It explicitly contrasts itself with production effects, distinguishing it from siblings like register_agent_health and test_agent_webhook that involve real registration or delivery.

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 signals when to use the tool: for an isolated local verification, as it explicitly rules out network requests, production registration, coin spend, and external delivery. It does not name specific alternatives, but the negative constraints make the safe-context usage unambiguous.

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