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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the security-relevant guarantee that credential fields are returned as NAMES and 'never values', plus the visibility scope limiting results to projects the caller can see. It stops short of covering pagination or result size.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope, then the field inventory, then the disambiguation. The parenthetical '(never values)' is a compact way of carrying a critical guarantee. No filler sentences.

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 does the work of describing the return surface (project, server, transport, status, roles, auth, credential field names) and the visibility boundary. Combined with the sibling disambiguation and the annotations' safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space on the shape of the returned records, which is the useful equivalent.

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 ... MCP server binding') plus its scope ('across the projects you can see in your org'), then enumerates exactly what each row contains: project, server, transport, status, enabled roles, auth method, and credential field NAMES. It explicitly separates itself from list_mcp_servers, so an agent can route without opening either 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 an affirmative use case ('Use it to find where a credential is used') and names the alternative with its distinguishing condition ('use list_mcp_servers for one project's full detail'). Nothing about when to pick this over its sibling 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.