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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: metadata is publisher-supplied and does not constitute execution or behavioral validation, which tells the agent how much to trust the payload. It stops short of saying what happens for an unregistered name or whether results are cached.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trust caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent does not already have from structured fields.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and trust boundaries. The one remaining gap is the absence of an output schema combined with only a vague "structured publisher metadata" — the agent cannot anticipate which fields come back.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Exact registry server name" with a max length. The description only reinforces that a registry lookup is required; it adds no syntax, casing, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Retrieve structured publisher metadata for a registered MCP server." It also carves out scope ("DOES NOT execute tools, trust descriptions, or validate actual behavior"), which helps distinguish it from an execution or validation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from the siblings search_mcp_servers or get_eviduct_network_status, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Gives a clear negative usage rule — do not treat the returned metadata as trusted behavior or validation — which is meaningful guidance about how to use the output. However, there is no positive when-to-use statement and no routing guidance versus search_mcp_servers, so the agent must infer that this is the lookup-by-exact-name counterpart to search.

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