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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint=false). The description usefully adds the result ordering ("best first"), but says nothing about what a result contains or how ranking is determined.

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 sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and the hard constraint are both front-loaded.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented and the constraint is stated, with no output schema to explain. The only remaining gap is result shape and ranking semantics, which matters somewhat for a discovery tool but is a minor omission.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds the mutual-exclusion contract between use_case and query that the schema only hints at. It adds no further meaning for kind, limit, or client, which the schema already documents well.

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: ranking MCP servers and skills for a job, with an explicit ordering ("best first"). It is clearly distinct from the only sibling, get_install, but the description never names that distinction 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?

"Pass exactly one of use_case and query" is an explicit, actionable selection rule that an agent could easily get wrong otherwise. It still leaves the tool-vs-sibling routing (search here, install there) to inference from the names.

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