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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context: external results come from the official MCP Registry and are live-checked, and the return payload is connector URLs the user can add — the 'live-checked' freshness guarantee is not derivable from any structured field.

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 English sentence is well front-loaded and covers scope plus return value efficiently. However, the entire content is then repeated verbatim in Arabic, roughly doubling length without adding new information for an agent that has already parsed the first sentence — redundancy rather than concision.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely ('connector URLs the user can add to their AI'). Combined with the annotations covering safety and the fully documented schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the relationship to 'list_assistants' is unaddressed.

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 all three parameters (query, limit, source) are already documented in the schema, including the Arabic-only notes about English external descriptions. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find AI assistants for a need') and explicitly fences the two result domains: the marketplace's own specialised assistants plus verified third-party MCP servers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_assistants', which an agent would need to choose between.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the need-based 'query' framing implies this is the search-by-goal tool, and the schema's 'source' enum (all/internal/external) encodes how to narrow scope. There is no explicit when-to-use versus 'list_assistants', which is the most likely alternative for an agent to confuse it with.

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