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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The one-sentence description only mentions what it returns and the intent; it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior (though pagination is hinted in the limit parameter description). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and return values without waste. It is concise and structured, though it could be slightly expanded with a usage note or a caution without becoming verbose.

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 search tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It states the purpose and return fields but does not explain the overall flow (e.g., how to use the returned endpoint, what to do with hasMore/nextOffset, or any prerequisite context). The parameter descriptions fill some gaps, but the main description could add a sentence about pagination or result interpretation.

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 provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for all six parameters, especially 'limit' and 'access', which include behavioral caveats and selection guidance. The description itself does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('agents and MCP servers'), and the purpose ('that can perform a described task'). It also lists the return fields (endpoints, skills, liveness, price) and the intent (pick one and call it directly), making it distinct from sibling search tools like 'search' or 'search_memory'.

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 when to use it (when you need to find an agent/server), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The limit parameter adds usage guidance (ask for more only when you mean to read it, paginate with hasMore/nextOffset), but the main description lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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