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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are verified from a live server's tools/list, so names and input schemas are authoritative rather than claimed. It also discloses the billing model (2 free calls/day, then 0.1 USDC over x402 or prepaid credits), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload (provenance, differentiation, usage routing, cost), with the scope constraint front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys what is returned (tools with authoritative names and input schemas, optionally full JSON schema via with_schema). Missing only explicit mention of result ordering or the effect of the limit parameter.

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 67% and the two optional parameters (limit, with_schema) are already documented in the schema itself, so the description adds little. It only implicitly frames the query as a description of desired behaviour, leaving the description to do no more than the schema already does.

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 individual MCP tools by name and behaviour') and immediately scopes it against the sibling concern ('not the servers that host them'). An agent can distinguish it from find_resource without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when you know the shape of the call you need') paired with the named alternative and its condition ('use find_resource when you are looking for a service'). It also discloses the cost model, which affects invocation decisions.

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