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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that rankings are provisional with no outcome evidence, that each result carries a runtime-specific install snippet, and that lookups are free. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs to interpret and trust the output. It stops short of describing result cardinality behavior, latency, or error handling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then input guidance, then output expectations and cost. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input phrasing, result ranking caveat, and result contents (install snippet) plus cost. The main remaining gap is that the return record's identifying fields are not named, which would help an agent chain into get_entry.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including enums and bounds; the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by stressing the short-phrase form of 'task' and by linking 'runtime' to the install snippet, but it says nothing about kind, capability, max_results, or verified_only beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find MCP servers that provide a capability for a task.' That is far more informative than the title alone and tells an agent exactly what kind of lookup this is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_entry or report_outcome, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step and get_entry is the detail step.

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?

There is useful input-level guidance: 'Pass a short capability phrase (e.g. "read Linear issues"), not the user's full request.' That steers query formulation well. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance relative to the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or follow-up path (e.g. use get_entry to inspect a result), so usage is only implied.

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