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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the return payload (context-token cost, security score, freshness), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result ordering, the limit cap of 25, or whether filters are ANDed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the return-value sentence earns its place given no output schema. No filler, though the phrasing is so terse that some needed detail was traded away.

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?

Partial coverage for a 4-parameter search tool: the return fields are described, but with three of four parameters undocumented anywhere and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell how filters combine, what limit does, or how results are ranked.

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 only 25% — only 'category' is documented in the schema. The description explains only that search is 'by keyword' (mapping to query) and leaves limit, transport, and category behavior unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Find') and resource ('MCP servers') plus the retrieval mechanism ('by keyword'). It is clearly a discovery/search tool, distinguishable in spirit from get_server and compare_servers, but it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this first for discovery and then follow up with get_server for details or compare_servers for a side-by-side. The keyword framing weakly implies discovery, but alternates and exclusions are absent.

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