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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context that it fans out across multiple registries at once (relevant to latency and partial results), but the sentence is truncated and says nothing about result aggregation or failure of one source.

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?

It is short, but it ends in an ellipsis ('servers and cells...'), making the sentence incomplete and leaving a dangling concept. Brevity here comes from being cut off rather than from disciplined editing.

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 and only safety annotations, the description needed to explain return shape and the meaning of 'cells' in this context; instead the text trails off. An agent could call it with a query string but could not predict results or scope.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, yet it never mentions what 'q' accepts (query syntax, registry-wide matching) or what 'limit' bounds. Neither parameter's meaning is clarified anywhere.

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 ('Search') and resource ('every public MCP server'), and names the federated sources (official MCP registry, Smithery). An agent can grasp what it does, though differentiation from siblings like mcp_list, mcp_tools, or tools_search is left implicit.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is for discovery of public servers versus mcp_list (own listings) or mcp_use (invoking one), which the description never addresses.

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