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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the tool should only return a replacement when evidence exists and otherwise returns 'none identified', which helps prevent hallucinated replacements. It stops short of describing evidence sources or lookup behavior in more detail.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the evidence condition and fallback are included compactly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: it identifies the replacement lookup and the fallback behavior. It could be more complete by clarifying the relationship to is_deprecated or what counts as evidence, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as a TestedMCP slug or npm package name. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but that is acceptable given the rich schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource: a maintained replacement for a deprecated MCP server. It also adds an evidence condition and fallback, so it is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as is_deprecated or search_servers, which keeps it at a 4.

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 phrase 'only when there is evidence (e.g. npm's message)' implies when the tool is appropriate, but it is framed as a behavior condition rather than an explicit when-to-use rule. It does not name alternatives or state clearly that the tool should be used after is_deprecated confirms deprecation. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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