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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and that secret fields are omitted, which are key behavioral traits. This goes beyond a minimal statement and covers main safety and data-privacy concerns.

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 description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a useful security note. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple listing function, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it lists, the scope (tenant's tool library), and the read-only/secret omission note. No additional context is needed.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is complete. The description does not need to add parameter-specific details; the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description satisfies this without requiring compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MCP servers') with a clear scope ('in this tenant's tool library'), making its purpose immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools that target other entity types (e.g., list_agents, list_tools).

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 provides clear context for when the tool would be used (to list MCP servers), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but no direct comparison with sibling tools is offered.

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