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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are ranked by match AND by signed proof reports, with 'works' lifting and 'broken'/'unsafe' demoting a server. That ranking mechanic shapes how an agent should interpret results. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, ranking behavior second. Both sentences carry weight. Minor jargon ('signed proof reports') is used without unpacking, but there is no padding.

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 should sketch what comes back, and it only explains ranking — not the shape of a server result or how many are returned. It is adequate for a simple search endpoint but leaves result interpretation partially to the agent.

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 only 50% — 'query' is documented but 'limit' has no description. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit or clarify query matching scope beyond the vague 'ranked by match'.

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 the catalog of MCP servers (from the official MCP registry)'. This clearly separates it from get_tool (retrieve one) and submit_report (contribute a report), though it never names those siblings explicitly and the 'servers' phrasing drifts from the tool's 'tools' name.

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?

No guidance on when to search versus calling get_tool directly, and no mention of what a good query looks like or when to stop. The description explains result ordering but not selection criteria, so usage must be inferred.

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