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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and not open-world, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail: it is hybrid keyword+semantic and searches both servers and their tools. It does not over-disclose or contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the most important filter guidance follows immediately.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves some return-shape details implicit, but the title, schema field descriptions, and sibling context are enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is an explicit statement of what the result set contains.

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 already high at 75%, and the description adds useful semantic context for the q parameter ('intent') and the class parameter (reachability via R0/R1). It does not need to restate every field, since the schema already documents most of them.

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 names a specific action and resource: hybrid keyword+semantic search over servers and their tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_server and list_tools, which are targeted retrieval and enumeration rather than intent-based discovery.

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 gives practical filter guidance ('keep only what you can reach autonomously (R0, R1)') but does not explicitly state when to use search versus the sibling tools. Usage context is implied by the title rather than spelled out with exclusions or alternatives.

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