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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key search behavior (filtering by q/tags/providers) and the effect of include=['content'] (inlining bodies). However, it does not describe response shape, pagination behavior, or side-effect profile, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a search tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the resource, the second covers filters and the key sibling alternative. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it omits pagination semantics, match behavior, and install_method filtering, and doesn't describe the return shape. The schema fills some details and the main search intent is clear, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 only 44%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for q, tags, providers, and include by stating how filtering and content inlining work, but it does not clarify match, install_method, context, page, or limit beyond what the schema already provides. The compensation is partial.

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 identifies a specific resource ('MCP servers across the catalog') and a clear verb/action (search/filter), explaining that these are Model Context Protocol servers offered to agents. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling find_artifacts tool by noting the cross-type search alternative, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 routes cross-type search to find_artifacts, which is a clear alternative guidance. It does not enumerate every sibling distinction or state exhaustive when-not-to-use conditions, but the core usage context is clear from the resource type and the filter capabilities listed.

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