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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the data source (OpenTelemetry traces and events), the metrics returned (calls, errors, latency), and that the operation is read-only and does not affect scores. It omits trace-ingestion lag, empty-result behavior when no telemetry exists, and pagination, which are meaningful gaps for a telemetry-backed list.

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?

A single dense front-loaded sentence enumerates the entity kinds and metrics, followed by a short clause on the informational nature. No filler, though the enumeration is long enough that the core purpose ('lists runtime inventory from OTel telemetry') competes with the detail.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys both input scope (entity kinds, metrics, cross-referencing to Spellwarden) and the nature of the result well enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing result grouping or empty-state behavior, which leaves a small gap given there is no output schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for kind and days and a detailed explanation of organisation/OAuth scoping. The description restates the kind enum values without adding format, default, or interaction semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (lists runtime-used MCP servers, tools, skills, models, agents, decisions, services) and names the data source (OpenTelemetry traces and events) plus the enrichment (matching against what Spellwarden knows). It implicitly separates itself from registry-style siblings like list_mcp_servers and list_skills by being about observed runtime usage, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause 'Informational: it changes no score' rules out a scoring use case, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_mcp_servers or list_skills, no prerequisites, and no exclusions beyond the scoring note.

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