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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses result ordering ('best first'), that the payload mixes new servers with health changes, and the default time window. It omits pagination flow and any note on how 'health changes' are represented, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences with the core behavior first and the default window second. Nothing is padded and no sentence merely restates the title.

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?

All six parameters are fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the description supplies ordering and the default window. The remaining gap is guidance on paging through results and on how the 'health changes' portion interleaves with new servers, but for a zero-required-param read tool this is close to complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump because 'Defaults to the last 7 days' restates the operative default of `since` in the description body, and 'best first' explains the ordering that no parameter exposes. It adds no meaning for limit, cursor, category, remote_only, or response_format beyond the schema.

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 concrete resource and scope: servers 'added to the directory recently', ordered 'best first', plus 'health changes'. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like search_servers or recommend_servers, so an agent must infer whether 'recently added' overlaps with a filtered search.

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 'Defaults to the last 7 days' line implies the tool is for recent-arrival discovery, and the schema's `since` cap of 90 days bounds it further. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_servers/recommend_servers, and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.

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