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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that results include whether the server answered the last probe and that the search targets the public registry, giving the agent useful behavioral context beyond the raw operation.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, return values are stated, and the practical use case is provided without redundancy.

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 is largely complete for a simple search tool: it explains the search space, the return fields, and how to use the results. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the limit parameter, but the schema's default value and type make it reasonably self-explanatory.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does explain that the query matches by name or title, but it says nothing about the limit parameter. Since only one of two parameters is meaningfully described, this is a partial compensation at best.

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 finds MCP servers in the public registry by name or title, which is a specific verb and resource. It also specifies what is returned—canonical name, description, and probe status—making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_server.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: to turn a rough idea of a server into the exact name needed by other tools. It does not name alternatives or provide explicit exclusions, but the use case is clear and actionable.

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