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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing matching behavior (lexical/bilingual), that unknown auth or price is treated as unsatisfied, that results default to remote endpoints, and that pagination requires re-passing the identical query with next_cursor as after. This is meaningful operational context.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and result-quality caveat, then matching, defaults, and pagination. Minimal waste, though the clauses are dense and telegraphic.

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?

No output schema, six params, zero schema coverage. The description covers pagination, defaults, and matching semantics but leaves several parameters (q, limit, transport) unexplained, so an agent lacks full invocation guidance despite the solid behavioral framing.

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 the burden. It clarifies 'after' (pass as after with identical query/filters), the transport default ('defaults to remote endpoints' maps to deployment), and the auth stance, but says nothing about q semantics, limit, or transport enum values.

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+resource: 'Discover publicly listed MCP services for a task.' Clear and distinct from the review/merchant/preparation siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative discovery tool or contrasts itself with search_experiences/find_offerings.

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 ('for a task') and qualifies the result quality ('Publisher metadata, not tested recommendations'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no when-not, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferrable rather than stated.

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