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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds helpful context by specifying the content domains (auth flows, scopes, safety controls, retention, confirmation rules) and that the information is public, which is not covered by 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that quickly communicates the tool's purpose. It lists key content categories without any redundant words or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what is returned. It could mention the return format, but the listed content categories give the agent a clear expectation for an informational policy tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the returned content instead.

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 'Return public MCP auth flows, scopes, safety controls, retention, and confirmation rules.' The verb 'Return' specifies the action, and the resource is explicitly named as public MCP auth and safety policy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth.status.

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 usage by listing the exact content the tool returns, making it clear this is the go-to for auth/safety policy details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though no close alternatives exist.

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