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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: 'No external tool is executed' and 'Documentation evidence is distinct from live testing', which warns the agent that results may be stale/curated rather than live-verified. Pagination ceilings (limit 100, offset 10000) are also disclosed.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the filter axes come first and the constraints follow. The telegraphic style ('Search sourced tools by q, category...') is dense but readable.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the entry is denser than most, yet the description covers filtering, combination logic, ordering, pagination and a non-execution guarantee. The return shape is only gestured at via an external endpoint reference ('Same response as GET /api/v1/tools'), which is the one remaining gap.

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 carry the load, and it does name nearly every parameter (q, tool, category, provider, capability, connection) plus limit/offset bounds and default. It still does not disambiguate q from tool, nor explain that provider/capability use slug format or what the connection enum values mean.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Search sourced tools') with an explicit enumeration of the filter axes (q, category, provider, framework tool, capability, connection). The resource name alone distinguishes it from siblings search_providers and search_mcp_servers, though it never states that distinction directly.

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?

Filter combination semantics are given ('Filters combine with AND') plus ordering and pagination defaults, which implies how to narrow a search. However, it never says when to use this instead of the sibling search_providers or search_mcp_servers, nor what happens when no filters are supplied.

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