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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the return shape (publisher metadata and pagination) and the negative behavior (no connection or execution). It stops short of stating rate limits or result-ordering behavior, hence not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then alternatives, then the negative constraint. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (publisher metadata plus pagination), and annotations handle safety. The only gap is that the sibling search_hosted_connectors is never mentioned, so an agent must infer which search surface applies to hosted connectors.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description does little beyond the schema, and 'by name, description or use case' slightly undersells the schema's caveat that matching is literal, not semantic — an agent could over-read 'use case' as conceptual search.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('MCP servers') plus the searchable fields (name, description, use case). It also explicitly names the sibling get_mcp_server and clarifies this tool does not connect or execute anything, so an agent can distinguish it from both siblings without opening a schema.

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 get_mcp_server for connection details' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, and 'Does not connect or execute third-party tools' is an explicit when-not. The remaining choice between this and search_hosted_connectors is left implicit, but the search/connection split is fully covered.

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