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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns a paginated record list driven by next_cursor, it states tool_count is 0 when not introspected, and it imposes an attribution requirement when data is displayed. That attribution obligation is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with what it is and the paging rule, then a compact field legend. The field block is long but each entry earns its place because there is no output schema; no filler sentences.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by documenting every returned field's type and meaning, plus pagination and mandatory attribution. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against web_mcp_servers, which leaves a selection ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented; the description mainly contributes by naming the cursor parameter semantics ('next_cursor from the previous result') and restating tld values. The long field list describes output, not inputs, so parameter-level value beyond the schema is modest.

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+resource: returns a list of Swedish MCP server records from the Aleva registry, with pagination. However, it never distinguishes this from the close sibling web_mcp_servers, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which registry-scoped list it wants.

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 explains the paging mechanic ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'), which is real usage guidance, but there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to web_mcp_servers or search_catalogue as alternatives. Usage is implied only.

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