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

Annotations already declare the operation safe and closed-world; the description adds that the result is a paginated enumeration ordered by tool name and includes full schemas for each tool. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

One concise sentence conveys the action, target, output content, and ordering/pagination behavior with no filler. All key information is front-loaded.

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 the read-only annotations and the schema already documenting the cursor, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool: server identity via name, pagination behavior, and the shape of returned tool definitions. Minor details like default page size are left to the implementation, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

With only 67% schema coverage (limit lacks a description), the description compensates by clarifying that the required name refers to the target server and that pagination proceeds by tool name, which gives meaning to cursor. Limit's semantics are only partially conveyed by its min/max bounds, but the core parameters are understandable.

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 names a specific action ('list') and resource ('a server's tools'), and specifies that the result includes full input/output schemas and pagination by tool name. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_connection and search, which target different resources.

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 makes the tool's scope obvious: it enumerates every current tool of a given server, so an agent can infer it is the right choice for exhaustive tool discovery. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations.

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