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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's added behavior is limited to enumerating return fields, which the existing output schema already documents, and it says nothing about result size, ordering, or what happens when the site grows.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the usage hint. The parenthetical English translation restates the same content, which is mild duplication but useful for language matching rather than filler.

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?

With zero parameters, a full output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey purpose and sequencing, which it does. A brief note on ordering or expected result count would have closed the last gap.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims that would need reconciling with 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Listet alle Seiten von was-ist-mcp.ch auf') plus the returned fields, so the scope is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from get_page ('bevor Sie gezielt eine Seite holen') without naming the sibling directly, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the first call to make before fetching an individual page, which is a clear usage cue for an agent orienting itself. It never names get_page or search as the alternatives, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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