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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only' without adding beyond that. However, because there is no output schema, the disclosure of the per-adapter fields returned (endpoint placeholder, credential header with exact value form, read-tool patterns, recommended starting tool set) adds genuinely useful behavioral context about what the caller will receive.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the usage rule, then the exception for custom servers. Slightly long, and the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than earning its place, but every other sentence carries information.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: it specifies the vendor set, the per-adapter fields, and the routing role relative to register_mcp_server and custom servers. An agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description instead explains the downstream semantics of the adapter_key the catalog yields, which is useful orientation even though it is not a parameter of this call.

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 and resource ('List the curated MCP integration catalog') and immediately enumerates concrete contents (vendors like OneUptime, Sentry, PostHog, GitHub), distinguishing it from list_mcp_servers and register_mcp_server. An agent can tell exactly what this returns 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before register_mcp_server to pick the right adapter_key, or to answer what integrations Ankra supports out of the box,' and additionally clarifies the negative case that custom http/sse servers are registered without an adapter_key. Nothing is left to inference.

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