Configured servers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what state is examined (load status) and surfaces a diagnostic condition ('configured but published nothing') that an agent would not know to look for from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage sentence adds distinct value rather than restating the first.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, usage, and the optional narrowing parameter. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single optional 'server' parameter including alias resolution. The description only implies an all-by-default scope, adding nothing the schema does not already say, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('report the MCP servers configured behind this gateway') and enumerates the reported fields (transport, tool count, load status). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like mcptoon_manifest and mcptoon_health without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'see what is actually reachable before calling a tool' and spot servers that published nothing. No explicit when-not or named alternative sibling, but the diagnostic framing makes the use case unambiguous.

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