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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral load, and it does disclose what comes back: matching schemas, endpoint/auth metadata, and secret-free client configuration. That return-shape and 'secret-free config' disclosure is genuinely useful and beyond the schema, though it omits read-only confirmation, the 25-result cap behavior, and any pagination or rate-limit notes.

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, zero waste, and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the behavioral detail. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly steps in to describe the returned artifacts, which is the main gap an agent would otherwise face. Only the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of read-only/limit semantics keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating what the query searches over (server names, descriptions, indexed remote tool names/descriptions), but it never explains the limit parameter or its 1–25 bound.

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?

Specific verb (Searches) plus the exact resource scope: server names, descriptions, and indexed remote tool names/descriptions. It also characterizes the return payload, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_server (single-server retrieval) without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with explicit trigger conditions ('Use when you need an MCP server, a specific indexed tool, API, data source, or other external capability'), which covers the when clearly. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g., get_server for a known server) or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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