Describe a tool

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds workflow ordering and hints that detail=full returns the whole schema, but says nothing about error behavior for a bad server/tool name or about what the compact form returns.

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 short sentences, no padding, and the core purpose plus the sequencing condition are front-loaded. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema and the tool is simple, so the description is close to sufficient: it covers purpose, ordering, and the detail mode. The remaining gap is parameter identity/format for server and tool, which the 0%-coverage schema leaves unexplained.

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 must carry the load and it only partially does. It clarifies the detail=full enum value by contrast, but says nothing about what 'server' accepts or how 'tool' is identified (name vs id).

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 ('Get the arguments for one tool') and ties it to the surrounding workflow. It is distinguishable from list_capabilities and call_tool, though 'arguments' vs 'schema' is slightly loose phrasing.

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?

Explicit sequencing: 'Call after list_capabilities and before call_tool if unsure of args.' That gives a clear condition for invocation and names the neighbors, though it never states the when-not case in the same explicit form.

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