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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful return-content details: what each MCP does, how to connect or run it, free/hosted status, and whether CCPEDIA can call it via call_canton_mcp.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields. No wasted text.

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, read-only directory tool without an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the scope, per-item return details, and the relationship to call_canton_mcp.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and it correctly focuses on output contents instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list Canton Network MCP servers known to CCPEDIA. It also distinguishes the listing role from call_canton_mcp by noting whether CCPEDIA can call each server directly.

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?

Clearly implies the discovery use case and signals the relationship to call_canton_mcp for actual invocation. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the distinction from the sibling is understandable.

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