Example — connect a V-MCP endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond this by detailing the constructed commands (HTTP, bearer, etc.) and confirms the tool is safe (no side effects). No contradiction with annotations.

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: the first lists the output, the second states prerequisites. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not repeat output schema details, which is appropriate. Completeness is high for this simple tool.

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?

There are no parameters (empty input schema), and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly notes 'Takes no arguments', which aligns with the schema. No further parameter semantics needed.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns: ready-to-use commands (HTTP endpoint, Bearer header, claude mcp add line, mcp-proxy bridge, raw JSON-RPC curl). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'about', 'config', 'openapi_example', and 'self_host', which serve different purposes.

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 says 'Use this once you have a deployed gateway, a group id and an agent key', providing clear prerequisites and context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the narrow scope, this guidance is sufficient.

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