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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state that. It adds valuable context by explaining the tool's role ('observes and measures... publishes verifiable evidence') and closes with 'Measurement is status only, never endorsement,' which clarifies the non-judgmental nature. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the behavioral expectations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with 'START HERE' but then becomes a lengthy paragraph covering company background, the ecosystem, and the new-user path. While each sentence carries information, several sentences (e.g., about SASAME S.R.L. and the 'MCP Factory') are tangential to the tool's immediate function. It could be trimmed to a more direct statement of purpose and next steps without losing value.

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, read-only starting-point tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool is, who operates it, what the current user path is, and which sibling tools to use next. An agent armed with this description will know exactly what to do after calling this tool, which is exactly what a 'start here' tool needs.

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 schema fully covers everything. The description does not and need not add parameter details. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 opens with 'START HERE' and clearly states the tool is the entry point for new users to the SaSame MCP ecosystem. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming audit_mcp and resolve_and_run as alternatives, and by describing the new-user path (keyless public tools first, then OAuth tools). This is a specific, actionable purpose that an agent can immediately understand and differentiate from the many sibling tools.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'use keyless public tools first, then OAuth account tools when you need...' and points out audit_mcp and resolve_and_run as specific alternatives for different needs. It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use others, making the routing decision crystal clear.

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