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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists servers and gives a scope; it does not describe the output format, whether external network access is involved, or any side effects. 'List' implies read-only, but little else is revealed.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource. It contains no filler and communicates the essential scope efficiently.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description gives the resource and scope, which is sufficient for invocation. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'plus this desk' fully covers, but the tool is simple enough that no output schema or return-value detail is strictly required.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the schema/context signals confirm no arguments are needed.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'MCP servers', and narrows scope to the official registry (io.github.ANAMIZED/*) plus this desk. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling list tools, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 context is implied: an agent should call this to enumerate MCP servers in the official registry and the current desk. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling list tools, but the resource type and scope make the basic use case clear.

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