List a user's servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds purpose context but no additional behavioral details such as side effects or permissions, so it meets the lower bar set by the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly packed with relevant purpose and use-case information without any redundant words or boilerplate.

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 read-only list operation with well-covered parameters and safety annotations, the description supplies enough context to select and call the tool correctly. No output schema is present, but that is not a deficiency given the simplicity of the resource. It could arguably include an example of the user parameter, but the schema already clarifies it.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters (user UUID, pagination, detail level, free-text search). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description does not add extra parameter nuance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (servers), and the scope (owned by one user). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_servers (all servers) and get_server (single server) by specifying the user filter.

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 description provides a concrete use case ('what does this customer actually have') and hints at an efficiency benefit over listing all servers. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, but the 'without paging the whole server list' phrasing gives practical guidance.

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