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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavior the agent could not infer: AND-matching over query words, exact-alias results ranked first, and — importantly — that discovery itself is free while invoking the returned endpoint requires ToolCargo authentication. It also enumerates what each result carries (endpoint, setup link, credentials, shared-plan pricing).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then matching rules, then return contents, then the auth caveat — a logical order with no filler sentences. Slight redundancy with the query parameter description ('every word must match' appears twice across the two surfaces).

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, result ordering, returned fields, and the authentication boundary for downstream use. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and act on results is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds ranking meaning beyond the schema ('exact task aliases come first') and reinforces the strict all-words-must-match rule, which changes how an agent should phrase a query.

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+resource with scope: 'Find ToolCargo's own ready-to-use hosted MCP connectors using catalogue text and curated task aliases.' The word 'own' implicitly contrasts with the broader registry behind search_mcp_servers, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

'Use this first for supported hosted tools' gives clear routing for the primary case, and the follow-up auth note tells the agent what happens after discovery. It never states when to fall back to search_mcp_servers or get_mcp_server, so the exclusion side of the guidance is missing.

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