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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail (results sorted by score). However, it omits that deprecated servers are excluded by default (the include_deprecated default is false) and says nothing about result count limits or truncation, which matter for an agent consuming results.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose plus result ordering are front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the title or name.

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?

Evidence from the description is thin on the two optional parameters and the default exclusion of deprecated servers, but for a read-only search tool with no output schema it covers the essential purpose. Given the low schema coverage, a bit more on limit/include_deprecated would close the gap.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: "by name, package or category" maps loosely to query and category. The limit (default 10, max 50) and include_deprecated (default false) parameters are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource ("Search MCP servers tested by TestedMCP") and names the matchable fields (name, package, category), plus the result ordering by score. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_score or is_deprecated, but those serve clearly distinct lookup purposes, so an agent can still route correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing suggests finding servers by name/package/category, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of when to reach for get_score or is_deprecated instead. The scenario is inferable but not spelled out.

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