list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by calling it a 'pure in-memory catalog listing', but mostly repeats the read-only and idempotent traits rather than adding deeper operational detail.

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-loads the scope, then uses labeled 'When to use', 'Not for' and 'Behavior' sections. Every sentence contributes to routing or behavioral understanding, with no filler.

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 empty input schema, comprehensive annotations and existing output schema, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what is listed, when to use it, what it is not for, and that it is a read-only in-memory catalog. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description.

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, 'List', and a specific resource: the whole ISO 20022 suite, including message families and specialized servers, with those contents enumerated. It also explicitly separates itself from generate/parse/validate for building or reading messages, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' section about discovering specialized servers and routing cross-cutting payments workflows. It also includes a clear 'Not for' section naming the alternative tools 'generate', 'parse' and 'validate' for message building and reading.

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