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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the critical safety trait: 'Never invokes remote tools,' and it restricts actions to 'initialize/tools-list only.' This meaningfully informs the agent about what the tool will and will not do, though it omits details like network behavior or output format.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the critical safety boundary. Every word contributes useful 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?

The description adequately conveys purpose and safety, but it leaves parameter semantics entirely to inference and does not describe what a successful response looks like. Since there is no output schema and no parameter documentation, a bit more context about 'query' and 'limit' would make this fully 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% and the description does not mention 'query' or 'limit' at all. The parameter names and the default value for 'limit' offer some inference, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Discover relevant MCP servers') and scopes the action precisely to 'inspect initialize/tools-list only.' The boundary 'Never invokes remote tools' clearly differentiates it from invocation-oriented siblings like neo_ask_agents or verify_mcp_endpoint.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives are provided, but the description's 'Never invokes remote tools' gives an implicit exclusion that guides an agent toward using this for discovery/inspection rather than invocation. The usage context is mostly inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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