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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait that no call is proxied and credentials stay with the caller. It also enumerates the returned per-server fields (product surface, auth model, transports, docs URL), though it omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, and pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then payload, then filter, then the critical no-proxy caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 one-optional-param discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: the listed resource, the fields of each entry, the filter, and the non-proxy guarantee. Remaining gaps (read-only confirmation, pagination) are minor.

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 100% and the single parameter's meaning is already documented. The description adds only 'Optional q filters by name/product/summary', which largely restates the schema's 'case-insensitive substring over name/product/summary', making this baseline-3 territory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every u.cash MCP server in the fleet') and enumerates the sub-fleets (buyer, seller, prime, legacy) plus the per-server payload. It is distinguishable from the closely named sibling uxc_discover_tools by scope (servers vs tools), but it never names that sibling or draws the line 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?

Gives clear operational context: it is 'Discovery only' and the caller must 'connect to each server directly with your own credentials; no call is ever proxied', which tells an agent what this tool is not for. It stops short of explicitly routing between this and a named alternative such as uxc_discover_tools.

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