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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the 1–90 day bound, it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what `limit` does, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed for a list-style discovery tool.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter note, with no filler. The stray backtick artifact around ``days`` is minor noise but does not hurt comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves `limit`'s effect and sibling disambiguation unaddressed, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by giving the `days` range (1–90) and theme examples, but the `limit` parameter is never explained anywhere, so one of three parameters remains undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Neu entdeckte MCP-Server der letzten ``days`` Tage'), so an agent can tell it returns recently discovered servers within a time window. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings recent_changes or service_status, which leaves overlap ambiguous.

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 1–90 range for `days` and the theme-key examples imply intended usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or disambiguation against recent_changes/service_status. Usage is only inferable.

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