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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only a cryptic note about separate rating dimensions and says nothing about result ordering, pagination via limit/offset, or what a result row contains.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is tersely worded and slightly ambiguous, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 six-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the core intent but omits result format, pagination semantics, and the meaning of the remaining undocumented parameters. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 33% (only q and category documented). The description usefully clarifies the 'usage' vs 'assessment' sort semantics, and the type/sort enums and limit/offset are largely self-evident, but offset/limit behavior and category identifiers are left entirely to the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource set ('Find MCPs, APIs and apps') plus a scoping qualifier ('by task'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_tool and search_questions. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative or clarifying how it relates to compare_tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The second sentence ('Usage ratings and documentation-based AI assessments are separate.') obliquely explains that two sort dimensions exist but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_tool or compare_tools. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance.

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