connection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by warning that 'Unknown identity/readiness fields remain unknown' — telling the agent the response may contain partial/hollow data rather than a complete picture, which is not inferable from 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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded, with no filler. The only mild inefficiency is the verbose vendor phrasing 'licensed local Screaming Frog MCP' where a shorter scope statement would do.

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, so the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back. It hints at identity and readiness fields but does not enumerate the diagnostics returned, leaving the agent to discover the response shape by calling it. Adequate for a zero-arg status tool, but not 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 clear verb+resource combination ('Read-only diagnostics') scoped to the licensed local Screaming Frog MCP, and the closing clause ('Does not start or change a crawl') separates it from mutation siblings like start_audit. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closer sibling audit_status, so the differentiation is partial.

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 negative constraint 'Does not start or change a crawl' implies when-not-to-use (i.e., don't call this to kick off work), which is useful. But no alternative is named for the cases it excludes, and there is no positive statement of the trigger condition for calling it.

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