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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that only admin-pinned enabled servers are returned and that the agent cannot mutate peer state. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 resource definition before the scope caveat. Every clause carries meaning: the population (enabled, admin-pinned) and the constraint (not arbitrary, read-only). No filler.

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?

With no parameters, readOnlyHint set, and an output schema present to describe return values, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and call. Minor gap: no guidance on result size or ordering, which is a small omission for a list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a parameter-free tool is 4. The description adds no parameter ambiguity since none exist.

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 'List' plus a precise resource: 'enabled servers whose signing identities an administrator explicitly pinned.' It also states what it is not ('configured federation discovery, not arbitrary URL discovery'), which sharpens scope. It doesn't name the closest sibling (federation.connections.list) explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

It gives clear context ('configured federation discovery, not arbitrary URL discovery') and a hard constraint ('agents cannot enable or add peers'), telling the agent what this tool cannot do. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the adjacent 'arbitrary discovery' case, so 4 rather than 5.

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