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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the returned payload scope (live-observed vs source-attributed schemas, resources, prompts, package definitions, provenance, sanitized maintenance events), which tells the agent how rich and how trustworthy the record will be.

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 the verb and scope first, then the payload enumeration. It is dense but every clause describes actual returned content rather than restating the name; no 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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description only needs to establish what record is fetched and how it differs from the finder. It does that adequately; the only shortfall is the absence of an explicit alternative/pivot statement.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Directory listing id'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'published MCP listing' mildly narrows what the id can refer to, but adds no format or lookup-failure detail. 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+resource: 'Get one published MCP listing.' The singular, id-keyed retrieval is clearly distinguishable from the sibling koskamo_find_mcp_server search tool, though that sibling is not named. The enumerated payload contents reinforce what kind of record this returns.

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 only implied: 'one published ... listing' plus a required id signals direct lookup by identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus koskamo_find_mcp_server (discovery) or koskamo_get_history (version history), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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