Zé capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description needs only to add context. The phrase 'writes stay gated' adds some context about permissions scope, and 'unofficial' warns about provenance, but it does not disclose output structure or failure modes.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. Its phrasing is slightly informal and noun-like, but every word adds information about scope.

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 simple, optional-parameter, read-only capabilities tool, the description gives adequate scope and is consistent with the annotations. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit statement of what gets returned would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions the response_format parameter, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage. The enum and default in the schema make the single option understandable, but the description contributes no parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a report of what the unofficial MCP can read and which writes remain gated, which is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling read/write operations. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'List' or 'Return,' but the intent is clear.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned; the agent must infer that this is a discovery/metadata tool from the name and phrasing. It does not say to call it before other tools or how it relates to ze_privacy_audit or ze_place_order.

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