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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the no-key access rule and naming the underlying REST endpoint (GET /api/v1/operations), but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether the registry is cached/stable over time.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the endpoint/auth note, then a reference link — little waste. The parenthetical "(tag narrows it)" is slightly cryptic but compact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does by listing every field each operation record includes. Combined with the auth disclosure and the mapping resource, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only filter-matching details and result volume are missing.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and only offers "(tag narrows it)" plus the maxLength seen in schema. It does not say which field the tag matches (documentation anchor? operation tag?) or whether it is an exact or partial match, so meaning is added but incompletely.

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 public v1 operation registry" plus an explicit enumeration of what each entry carries (id, method, path, authentication, scopes, switches, idempotency rule, documentation anchor) gives a specific resource and payload shape. It also states the relationship to the rest of the server ("Each operation is one tool of this server"), so an agent can place it unambiguously.

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?

It says the call works over "any connection, with or without a key" and that "tag narrows it," which tells the agent when to supply the optional filter and that no auth setup is required. It does not contrast against other discovery paths beyond pointing at pluribotica://mcp/tools.json, but the sibling tools listed are unrelated, so this is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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