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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data sources (GitHub and remote-mcp.com), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details about search behavior, response format, or any filtering semantics beyond the annotation-covered traits.

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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes the essential source URLs without any filler, making every word count.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers its core purpose and data sources. However, it lacks any description of the return format or query behavior, which the agent would need to fully understand the tool's output and capabilities. Gaps remain around response structure and search semantics.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only implies 'search' meaning the query is used for searching, but provides no details about supported syntax, matching behavior, or examples. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to properly use the parameter.

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 clearly state the tool lists and searches trusted Remote MCP Servers from specific sources. It uses a specific verb ('List and search'), a resource ('Remote MCP Servers'), and includes the exact source URLs, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is for discovering trusted Remote MCP servers by referencing the curated sources. Since there are no sibling tools, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are needed; the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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