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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned attributes (classification, auth mode, finding counts), which is real behavioral value. It says nothing about pagination despite a cursor parameter, nor about ordering, result volume, or whether the call is safe/non-mutating beyond the word 'Lists'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-attribute list is informative rather than redundant. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool, though it could have traded a few words for a routing hint.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. The main gap is pagination behavior, which an agent must infer from the cursor parameter alone.

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% and the organisation parameter is documented in unusual depth in the schema itself, including OAuth/API-key scoping. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Lists) and resource (the organisation's MCP servers) and even names the returned attributes: classification, authentication mode, finding counts. It implicitly separates from add_mcp_server by being the read side, but never names a sibling or scope boundary 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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the absence of any other list tool for MCP servers among the siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when the tool is not appropriate, and no mention of the connection/permission context that the schema's organisation parameter hints at.

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