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

No annotations are provided, but the description clarifies it lists remotely-callable servers without requiring installation, implying a read-only search operation. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but the nature of a search tool is clear.

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 description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, scope, and key differentiator without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly, including the registry source and filtering options. While no output schema is given, for a search tool this is acceptable; the absence of explicit return format is a minor gap but not critical.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, including examples for query and explanations for filters like transport, host, and auth. The description text reinforces these filters, ensuring the agent understands each parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool searches MCP servers from the official registry, specifies its scope (remotely-callable, excludes installable packages), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like search_products or search_x402_endpoints by focusing on MCP servers.

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 description implies usage by explaining what it answers ('what can I call now') and what it excludes, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. Still, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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