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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description needn't cover that. It does add genuine context beyond the annotations: the data is documentary ('doc wording') with probe-based evidence for cross-border reachability, and results are unranked facts. It omits pagination, default page size, and whether an empty result is possible.

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?

Compact with no filler sentences, and the domain scope comes first. However, the entire definition is a single colon-led fragment with nested parentheses, and phrases like 'evidence=probe' read as internal shorthand rather than agent-facing prose, making it harder to parse than its length suggests.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the returnable dimensions (transport, auth barrier, account requirements, pricing, free quota, cross-border status, registry/directory listing), so an agent knows what a record contains. Defaults, result count, and ordering are still missing, but the core need for a read-only catalog lookup is met.

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 only 17% (just `query`), so the description must carry weight. It partly compensates by explaining what `cross_border` actually measures (China<->US handshake via TANDIU, evidence=probe) and by enumerating the dimensions that map to `pricing_model` and `category`. The `limit`, `region`, and `category` semantics remain undefined beyond their enum values, and no default limit is stated.

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 identifies the resource precisely (official MCP servers of major US/Chinese/regional companies and the facts tracked about each), which clearly separates it from the pricing/cost siblings. But it never states the verb — that this is a searchable/filterable lookup over that catalog — so the agent must infer the operation from the name 'find_mcp' alone.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing relative to the closest siblings (get_mcp_changes for change history, about_tandiu_data for methodology). The only implicit guidance is 'Facts only, no scores', which hints at a lookup rather than a recommendation tool, but that is inference rather than instruction.

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