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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scope note that filtering only narrows results, but it does not state the recency window, sort order, or pagination behavior — meaningful gaps for a "recent" listing tool.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the filter options trailing, with no redundant wording. It is economical, though it could have spent one more clause on the recency definition rather than nothing.

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 three-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The one substantive omission is what "recently updated" means and how results are ordered, which an agent may need in order to judge whether the output satisfies a freshness requirement.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the category and remote_only parameters are already documented in the schema, and limit is constrained by default/minimum/maximum. The description restates both filters (including the HTTPS qualifier) without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List recently updated MCP servers") plus the two filtering dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the call returns at a high level. It stops short of naming how it differs from sibling search_servers, leaving the recency-vs-query distinction implicit.

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?

Phrasing "recently updated" and "optionally filtered" implies the browse-newest use case, which is enough to infer usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_servers or get_server, and no mention of prerequisites or result-ordering assumptions.

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