registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It states the tool reads a public registry and returns a payload, but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or any side effects. The description adds some behavioral context (the registry is public) but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with distinct sections: core purpose, when to use, when not to use, and an example. It is concise (approximately 100 words) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description thoroughly explains the return payload's composition (tool names, resource URIs, etc.) and provides a realistic example. It could mention that the registry is likely cached or that access may be restricted, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read operation.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, which indirectly clarifies the tool's semantics.

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 tool reads the public Nogra MCP V1 registry and returns specific components like tool names and resource URIs. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the 'When to use' section helps distinguish it from sibling tools by emphasizing its role in discovery before choosing other tools.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear context for when the tool should be selected (to discover public registry contents) and when alternatives are better (e.g., reading resource contents directly). This directly addresses when to use it vs alternatives.

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