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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'published' and 'cited' and are informational rather than executable, which is real context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result ordering, page size, or what an empty result means despite the cursor parameter.

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 action and resource, zero filler wording. The exclusion clause in sentence two earns its place by disambiguating content type.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and every parameter documented, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is sibling routing against get_use_case and search_mcp_servers, which is the kind of ambiguity this tool's description could have closed.

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 100%, so query, cursor and server_id are already fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'by task or linked directory server' loosely mirrors the query/server_id split but adds no syntax, matching or cursor semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Find published cited use cases') and scopes it to task or linked directory server. The second sentence carves out what this is NOT (installed executable playbooks, provider grants), which helps, but it never contrasts with the more directly confusable siblings koskamo_get_use_case and koskamo_search_mcp_servers.

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?

Implicit guidance is present: 'by task or linked directory server' signals the two filtering modes, and the exclusion of executable playbooks steers agents aware of that distinction. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over koskamo_get_use_case (retrieve one known use case) or when catalog browsing should happen at all, so the agent must infer.

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