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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a free, public directory sourced from the official MCP Registry, and entries carry a safety grade, verdict, tool count, and change history.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no filler; the trailing "Free." fragment is terse but informative. Slightly clipped rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and annotations cover safety. What remains unaddressed is pagination/sorting behavior for the limit and offset parameters, but for a search tool this is a minor gap.

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 60% (sort, grade, query documented; limit and offset not), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no syntax or format detail for any parameter, leaving the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Privi Scan, the public directory of remote MCP servers from the official MCP Registry), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like scan_server, scan_changes, or scan_stats, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use it to find a trustworthy server for a job" gives a clear selecting condition for the tool. It names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so no explicit routing to siblings like scan_server or scan_changes.

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