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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds little beyond restating the purpose. It says 'all registered' but does not clarify that filters can narrow results, potentially misleading the agent about the default scope. No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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 redundant: 'List MCP servers' and 'Returns a list of all registered MCP servers' convey the same information. The dash-separated structure wastes space without adding value. It is short but not well-structured.

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 list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination (cursor, limit), search, version filtering, or updated_since semantics, nor any return format details. Annotations cover the read-only aspect, but the overall usage context is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 0% for five parameters, and the description provides no explanations for limit, cursor, search, version, or updated_since. The agent has no semantic understanding of these filter/pagination parameters from the description.

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 action ('List') and resource ('MCP servers'), and explicitly says it returns 'a list of all registered MCP servers'. While it doesn't directly differentiate from sibling tools (which focus on server versions), the name and phrasing make the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor are the optional parameters (limit, cursor, search, version, updated_since) explained. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or when to use a more specific version-related tool.

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