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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results carry measured timestamps and a server page URL, ordering is by checks passed, and the measurements are automated rather than a quality rating — a meaningful disclosure that prevents misreading of results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by sketching the return shape (timestamps, URL, ranking basis). However, for a five-parameter search tool with partial schema coverage, it leaves the free-text query parameter and the limit cap unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 only 60%: status, function and industry are documented in the schema, but query and limit are not described anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all (no syntax, defaults, or matching behavior for query, no default for limit), so it fails to compensate for the uncovered 40%.

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 and resource ("Search the server directory") and clarifies the result semantics (timestamps, page URL, ranked by checks passed). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like find_tools or get_server, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_tools or get_server, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by the word "Search"; the ranking caveat is about interpreting output, not about tool selection.

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