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

With no annotations, the description only says 'get detailed information,' which is minimally transparent. It doesn't disclose error handling, idempotency, or any restrictions, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Efficiently communicates the core action and object.

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 simple retrieval nature, the presence of an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It correctly identifies the primary parameter (name) and the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states it retrieves detailed information about a specific MCP server by name, directly distinguishing it from siblings like list, search, and get_versions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The use case is implied by its purpose (retrieve a single server), but no 'when not to use' or explicit mentions of sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Get all available versions') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'all available versions.' The description is too minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 that an output schema exists and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify or elaborate on what 'name' or 'registry_url' entail.

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 'Get all available versions for a specific MCP server,' using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_mcp_server (likely gets server details) and list_mcp_servers (lists servers).

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 implies usage (for getting versions of a named server) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mcp_server. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description only mentions 'list' and 'pagination support' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or output structure beyond what the output schema provides.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core purpose effectively.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage) and existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a paginated list operation, though it could briefly mention the default behavior or scope.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions; the description adds minimal value beyond stating 'pagination support', which is already implied by the cursor and limit parameters.

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' and the resource 'MCP servers from the MCP Registry' with pagination support, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_mcp_server' (single server) and 'search_mcp_servers' (search).

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 implies usage for listing with pagination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search or get single server), leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. It fails to mention aspects like authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but the description lacks any additional behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include more context (e.g., mentioning the output type) without becoming verbose. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 three parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain search behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), pagination, or result structure. The output schema covers return values, but the description should at least mention that results are returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already defines all parameters. The description adds no new semantic value beyond implying the query parameter is used for name/keyword search. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Search'), resource ('MCP servers'), and method ('by name or keywords'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers, get_mcp_server, and get_server_versions, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for searching, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no conditions (e.g., when list_mcp_servers might be more appropriate) are given.

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