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

Annotations already state that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world search. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it returns verified summaries and directing agents to get_tool for full facts, which clarifies result granularity. It does not disclose pagination or limit behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the usage scenario, then lists filtering capabilities and the get_tool alternative. Every sentence contributes relevant selection or invocation information.

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 an eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use cases, the broad filter set, and the fact that results are summaries rather than full records. It remains somewhat incomplete on limit/pagination behavior and the exact contents of the verified summaries, but it is largely sufficient for correct tool selection.

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 50%, so the schema carries much of the parameter burden. The description partially compensates by listing filterable dimensions such as name, category, app, access, credits, plan, and role, but it omits the limit parameter and adds little about enum values or filter syntax.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching official GTM MCP servers. It also states the exact questions it answers and distinguishes itself from get_tool by noting that get_tool provides full facts while this tool returns summaries.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: when someone asks which sales, marketing, or customer-success tools have an official MCP server, work in Claude/ChatGPT, or can read/change data or cost credits. It also names get_tool as the alternative for full details, though it does not explain when to use sibling tools like compare_tools or build_stack_brief instead.

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