Connection Info

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

The annotations already establish read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds content info (connection steps + tool list) but no further behavioral disclosure such as whether the returned steps vary by client or whether authentication is involved.

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?

A single, readable sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and result scope. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description plus empty parameter schema and hints (read-only, idempotent, open-world) is enough for a call/no-call decision. It doesn't detail output shape, but the output-schema presence and the described content (connection instructions + tool list) make that a minor 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?

The tool has no parameterswithed empty parameter schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; no extra parameter semantics are 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 clearly states the tool's resource (connection information) and content (connection steps + list of tools). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on how to connect this oracle in MCP clients, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar-sounding get_oracle_info or get_sdk_template.

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 implies when to use it—when the user needs connection instructions or a tool list—but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like get_oracle_info or get_sdk_template.

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