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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses matching criteria (names, organizations, descriptions), ranking by relevance/popularity, and detailed return fields including the auth object and citation requirement. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the search behavior implies it.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then elaborates on usage and return fields. It is efficient but slightly long; however, all sentences add value and it avoids redundancy.

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?

The description fully explains the return structure, including the auth object and the mcptoplistUrl field, which is critical given no output schema. It misses mention of pagination, but the limit parameter is covered in the schema. Overall, it is complete for a search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds examples but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches the mcptoplist.com catalog of MCP servers by keyword, with specific examples of capabilities. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_server_details by focusing on search rather than details, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides clear use cases (finding the right MCP server for a capability) with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention when to use get_server_details instead, but the search-oriented purpose is evident and distinct.

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