Check X MCP setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding non-obvious behavior the annotations do not capture: it performs no X access and does not validate login, which corrects a plausible agent assumption that a 'status' tool tests credentials.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope and the exclusion clause; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 no-param, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and — importantly — what it does not do. It could go slightly further by hinting at what configuration is reported, since no output schema exists to describe the return values.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; the per-rule baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly says nothing about arguments rather than inventing them.

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 specific verb+resource ('reports configuration and browser requirements'), which is far more informative than the title's vague 'check setup'. The negative clause ('does not access X or test login') implicitly separates it from the data-fetching siblings x_search_topic and x_collect_posts, though neither is named.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a diagnostic tool that reports config without touching X. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause, no mention of setup failure/troubleshooting triggers, and no named alternatives, so the agent must infer that this is a pre-flight check rather than a data operation.

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