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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the connection's scope and that matches contain a slug and tool names, but says nothing about pagination limits, empty-result behavior, or ordering beyond what the schema states.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the scope caveat, then workflow direction. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats the schema verbatim at length.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description only needs to orient the agent and route it onward, which it does. A brief note on result ordering or what an empty result means would close the 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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema, including the host enum values and limit default/max. The description only restates the host values and the query purpose ('Pass the job as query'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the full public MCP Index') and clarifies the scope boundary that matters most: 'The tools on this connection are only the Index, not the catalog.' That scope clarification helps separate it from sibling tools like get_record and compare_records, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Pass the job as query' gives invocation guidance, and 'Run one with call_indexed_tool' establishes the follow-up step. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over compare_records, recommend_records, or get_record, so the routing decision is only implied.

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