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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context on top: pagination via next_cursor and a mandatory attribution requirement ('Source: Aleva (aleva.se)') that constrains how results may be presented. Minor mismatch: it calls the cursor 'next_cursor' while the input parameter is named 'cursor'.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose, then pagination, then record fields, then attribution, with no filler. The opening sentence largely duplicates the title verbatim, which is the only wasted space.

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 enumerated return fields (domain, tld, kind, url, platform, detail, month) are genuinely necessary and supplied, and pagination plus attribution round out the picture. What remains missing is scope/routing context versus the near-identical sibling tools and any statement of dataset coverage.

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 100%, so all six input parameters (tld, kind, kind_in, platform, limit, cursor) are already documented in the schema and the description adds no input-side semantics. The field list it provides describes output records rather than parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (Swedish MCP, agent and API endpoints) and makes clear this is a listing tool that 'Returns a list of records', with the record shape enumerated field-by-field. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as web_mcp_registry, web_apis, or web_agents, so an agent cannot tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

The only usage instruction is 'pass next_cursor to get the next page', which covers pagination but not when to select this tool over web_mcp_registry, web_apis or web_agents. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are given.

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