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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains default behavior (returns only connectable servers) and filter effects. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or details about the return structure beyond the limit parameter.

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, starting with the main action and default behavior, then listing specific filter uses, and ending with a related action. It is front-loaded and each sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, default behavior, filter options, and even suggests a follow-up action. It lacks detail on return format but is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining specific use cases for parameters (e.g., 'Use production_safe=true to restrict to servers with uptime > 97% and handshake success > 95%') and clarifying defaults for the status parameter.

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's purpose: 'Search the Arclan registry for MCP servers.' It specifies the resource (Arclan registry) and the action (search), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_server, recommend_server, and report_server by focusing on querying the registry with various filters.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this before connecting to an MCP server to check its validation status and score.' It also gives specific filter suggestions (production_safe, read_only, status=stdio) and mentions a related action after use (report_server). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives.

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