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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the free directory scope and that liveness reflects a check every 30 minutes. It doesn't disclose pagination, result limits, or match/sort behavior.

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, zero waste; the filter dimensions are front-loaded followed by the result contract. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a five-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, and result fields including the liveness timestamp. It omits pagination and total-count behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 60%; the line and audience enums have no schema descriptions, though the description's phrase 'by line of insurance, US state, who it is for, or words' maps the friable fields to their semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most parameter documentation.

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 (free insurance MCP directory), and enumerates the filter dimensions (line, state, audience, words). The sibling set has no other search tool, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage context by naming the filter dimensions and describing result fields, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. It doesn't distinguish itself from find_agencies or route the agent between directory search and building a server. Clear context but no exclusions.

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