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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are read back from a live server's tools/list, so names and schemas are what the server actually exposes rather than what descriptions claim. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and verification behavior are front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation is placed exactly where it is most useful.

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?

For a read-only search tool with rich annotations and a schema that covers the parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what results are and how they are sourced, though it does not specify the exact return shape or fields when with_schema is false; this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 67%, and the schema already documents query and with_schema. The description reinforces query semantics with 'by name and behaviour' and explains with_schema's purpose, but it does not add meaningful detail about the limit parameter beyond what the schema's min/max/default already communicates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('individual MCP tools by name and behaviour'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from searching by server. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling find_resource by naming the exact alternative condition.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: use this tool when you know the shape of the call you need, and use find_resource when looking for a service. This is direct, actionable routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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