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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the search corpus (official and community-discovered registries), which is useful, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, default source, or what a hit looks like — for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and zero filler. Every clause carries information, though putting the use case before the verb means the core action is stated second.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation anywhere, the definition leaves an agent guessing about result shape, ranking, pagination, and the source enum. The use case and corpus are covered, but the operational details needed to call it well are missing.

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 all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not — query, limit, and the six-value source enum are never mentioned. The only guidance is indirect ("official and community-discovered" loosely hints at source values), which is far below what a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 (Searches) and resource (official and community-discovered MCP servers), and enumerates the kinds of capability it can surface (server, tool, API, data source). It is clearly distinguishable from get_server, which retrieves a single known 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?

"Use when you need an MCP server, tool, API, data source, or other external capability" gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_server, discover) or stating when not to use it, so it earns a solid but not top score.

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