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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context by stating that it returns up to 5 exact tool definitions with JSON schemas and annotations, and it includes an important caveat that the result is not authorization to invoke the tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted wording. The core search behavior is front-loaded, followed by return details and then the usage warning.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description explains what is searched, what is returned, how many results to expect, and a critical authorization caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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%, so both query and limit are already well documented. The description reinforces that the query is task-oriented and that results are capped at 5, but it does not add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it searches Assistable's registered MCP tools by task. It clearly distinguishes this meta-search behavior from sibling tools like tools_list and tools_get by framing the search around the user's intended task and promising exact tool definitions.

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?

It explicitly says to use this first when choosing a tool and warns that results are not authorization to call them. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternative sibling tools, but the primary usage context is clear.

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