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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful content scope, namely the service overview and Swiss coverage, but does not disclose filter behavior, error cases, or completeness guarantees beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the description is short enough for a low-complexity list tool. The English parenthetical largely repeats the German sentence, which is a minor redundancy but not a major structural flaw.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and both parameters are optional, so an agent can call it without filters. However, the description leaves filter values and usage guidance unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for correct use of 'kategorie' and 'status'.

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 description coverage is 0%, and both parameters are undocumented strings. The description names 'kategorie' and 'status' and says they restrict the list, but does not explain allowed values, format, or what each filter actually selects.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns the MCP service list from was-ist-mcp.ch as structured rows, including which services exist, what AI can read/change, and what is missing in Switzerland. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_pages, get_page, or 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 description explains that 'kategorie' and 'status' restrict the list, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternatives such as search or list_pages. The use case is only inferable from the stated purpose.

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