discord_verify_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new context: no arguments are required and DISCORD_TOKEN is reported as a boolean and 'never echoed', which tells the agent the call is safe to run and won't leak a secret. The enumeration of checks overlaps somewhat with the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the operational instruction ('run this first') closes it. The middle clause is a long comma-chained list of checks, which is informative but slightly heavier than needed given the output schema also enumerates them.

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 an output schema covering return values, an empty parameter schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is verified, that nothing is mutated, that no secret is exposed, and when to invoke it. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'takes no arguments', which is consistent with the empty schema and additionalProperties: false, leaving nothing ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb and scope ('check that the MCP server itself is correctly installed and connected') and enumerates the exact signals returned: token presence, gateway intents, toolsets/tool counts, READY state, and ping. The 'server itself' framing separates it from Discord-side diagnostics in the sibling list, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Run this first when the MCP server appears not to work at all.' That establishes precedence over deeper diagnostic siblings, but it doesn't name those alternatives (e.g. discord_diagnose_configuration, discord_check_tool_permissions) or state the when-not case for Discord-side config errors.

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