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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: results are 'source-labeled', only 'public' listings are searched, and listing content should be treated as untrusted data. This gives the agent meaningful extra safety and provenance guidance.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what is searched, what is returned, and a security caveat. The core action is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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 description gives a high-level picture of the search scope and return values, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it omits pagination semantics and filtering nuances. An agent could invoke it, but may not know how to structure effective queries or interpret result limits without additional assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only hints at the 'kind' dimension by mentioning servers, clients, and AI agents, but gives no explanation of query, category, limit, or offset behavior. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to fill out the request.

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 a clear resource ('public RUAGENTIC listings for MCP servers, clients, and AI agents'). It also states what is returned, so an agent knows this is a search tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling 'get_listing', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies this tool is for searching a directory of listings rather than retrieving one listing. However, it never mentions the sibling 'get_listing' or states when to prefer one over the other, leaving the choice to inference.

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