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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does so by explaining the tool's dual behavior (list all vs. details for a specific tool) and mentioning what the help includes (parameters, examples, related tools). No contradictions with 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?

The description is three concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff or redundancy.

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 simple schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It explains both usage modes and what to expect in return, leaving no significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100% for the one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating that calling without parameters shows all tools, and providing a tool name gets detailed help—this clarifies the optional parameter's behavioral effect.

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 tool lists available MCP tools and provides detailed help. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself well from sibling tools which all focus on domain-specific queries like funder or grant searches.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to discover what tools are available and how to use them') and explains the two call modes (no parameters vs. with a tool name). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear given the nature of the tool.

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