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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: grading cadence (nightly), grading dimensions (health, protocol conformance, prompt-injection risk), and that install URLs come back. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, data provenance, quality dimensions, and a return-value hint with zero filler. There is no sentence an agent must skip.

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 no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry more of the burden — yet it explains nothing about how the four filters combine, what a grade means in practice, or what the result set looks like beyond install URLs. Adequate as a blurb, insufficient as a calling contract.

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% across four parameters, and the description never mentions q, limit, category, or min_grade. Only indirectly does 'graded' hint at min_grade; the query, cap, and category facets are left entirely to the enum values and the agent's guesswork.

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 ('finds financial MCP servers') plus the differentiator that makes this catalog special (nightly FinzData grading). It is clearly a discovery tool distinct from fetch-style siblings like get_mcp_server, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'finds' plus 'results include install URLs' signals a discovery/browse step before get_mcp_server or claim_mcp_server. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of the sibling tools that serve the follow-up steps.

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