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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the returned fields (transport, enabled state, permission tier, last connection state, grant counts) and the security-relevant fact that env values are never returned.

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 verb, resource and returned fields, and the enumeration earns its place since no output schema exists. The closing 'Read-only' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so field by field, plus it notes what is withheld (env values). It also connects the tool to the grant workflow via grant_mcp_tool, so an agent has everything needed to call it and act on 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?

There are zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its budget on return shape, which is the right allocation for a no-arg list tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the organisation's registered MCP tool servers') and enumerates exactly which fields come back, so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling, get_mcp_catalog, leaving the catalog-vs-registered distinction implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It provides clear context for when this matters — registered servers extend agent runs with extra tools, and every tool still requires a role grant via grant_mcp_tool. That names the follow-up tool and the condition that makes it relevant, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison against get_mcp_catalog.

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