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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing non-obvious behavior: which fields are matched, that common terms like postgres/e2e/scraping are synonym-expanded, and that an empty query returns the category listing. Result ordering and how limit truncates are not described.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter mechanics, with no filler. The nested parentheticals for matching rules and slug sources make it dense but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 partially compensates by naming the matched fields (name, vendor, verdict, install, category), hinting at the returned entry shape. For a 3-param, no-required-arg search tool this is close to complete; only the limit/pagination behavior and result ordering remain unstated.

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%; query and category are documented in-schema, while limit is not. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining match fields, synonym expansion, the empty-query listing behavior, and that category accepts either a dev task or a type slug. The undocumented limit parameter is left unaddressed.

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?

'Find MCP servers and Agent Skills for a dev task' names a specific verb and resource, and the matching semantics ('every term must match name, vendor, verdict, install or category') make the scope concrete. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing at list_categories as the slug source, but never contrasts itself with get_entry, which is the more likely confusion.

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 lays out three usage modes clearly: free-text query, optional category filter, and the empty-query case that lists the category. It also routes the agent to list_categories to obtain valid slugs. What is missing is any negative guidance (e.g. use get_entry for detail on a known entry).

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