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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: results are limited to followed servers and to the latest listing (no history), and it discloses the case-insensitive exact default plus the 3-character minimum for 'contains'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then matching semantics, then scope limits. No redundant restatement of the title or schema, and nothing dangles.

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 values need not be explained. Scope, matching modes and default behavior are all covered; the only real gap is the absence of head-to-head guidance against the sibling lookup tools.

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 50%: 'name' is described in the schema but 'match' is only an enum with a default. The description compensates by explaining what exact vs 'contains' actually do, including the case-insensitivity and the 3-character floor that the schema's pattern does not express.

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 ('Finds which tracked vendor MCP servers list a tool with a given name') plus a secondary output ('the kind each is counted as'). It reads clearly relative to siblings like list_tracked_servers or get_server_capabilities, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 scope constraint ('Searches only the servers the tracker follows, at their latest listing') tells the agent when results will be incomplete, which is useful context. But it never states when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (e.g. list_tracked_servers or get_server_capabilities), so usage is only implied.

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