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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the ranking model (relevance and GitHub stars), which tells the agent how to interpret result ordering and that popularity influences output.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The corpus and mechanism are front-loaded, with filters and ranking following in a logical order.

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 read-only, four-parameter search with no output schema, the definition covers scope, filtering, and ranking, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result shape and the limit parameter's effect, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents query, category, and remote_only, and the description mostly restates those in prose. The one undocumented parameter, limit, gets no explanation of its tradeoffs in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the structured fields.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus the exact resource domain (the MCP Harbor directory of MCP servers, clients and SDKs) and a keyword-based mechanism. It implicitly separates itself from search_tools by naming servers/clients/SDKs as the corpus, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 keyword-plus-optional-filter framing makes the intended usage implied and obvious, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against siblings like list_categories, recent_servers, or search_tools. An agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point and that get_server is for retrieval of something already found.

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