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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: typo-tolerant full-text search and the specific result fields returned. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds return shape and matching behavior without repeating schema details.

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 an all-optional 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema adequately cover invocation and result contents. It could clarify behavior when query is omitted or how pagination works, but limit defaults are in the schema and the return fields are stated.

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 each parameter is already documented, including the enum for type and examples for query and category. The description reinforces query semantics with 'typo-tolerant full-text search' but does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search the OmniTravel directory of MCP servers, agent skills and APIs for travel technology.' It also lists the returned fields (tagline, category, author, URL), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools get_tool_details and list_categories.

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 establishes this tool as the directory's search entry point and the optional type/category/limit filters in the schema clarify scoping. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, but the search-focused context is clear and no prerequisites are needed.

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