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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses case-insensitive substring matching, optional server scoping, returned fields, and that no call is proxied. It does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the search behavior, then returns, then the discovery-only constraint.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what is returned: the tool, a one-liner, its server, and how to connect. It also covers the critical discovery-only/no-proxy behavior, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 67%, and the description adds useful semantics for q by specifying case-insensitive substring matching and for server by describing scope. However, it does not explain the limit parameter beyond the schema's default/min/max, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: search tools across every u.cash MCP server by name or description. It clearly distinguishes itself from uxc_discover_servers by focusing on tools rather than servers, and from catalog/order operations in the sibling list.

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 provides clear usage context: optional server scoping and the explicit instruction to connect to the discovered server directly rather than proxying calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives like uxc_discover_servers or uxc_search_catalog, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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