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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'search' without stating whether it is read-only, what the output structure looks like, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a search tool, it lacks transparency about the response format and constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the core action and scope immediately, making it efficient and easy to parse. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the results look like or any pagination details. It does neither. The description is too minimal to provide complete context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected output.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for query, source, or limit. The tool description also fails to explain these parameters. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., query for search text, source for origin), the enum values and limit bounds are not elaborated. The description does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'MCP servers' with a specific scope ('official and community-discovered'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_agents by naming a different resource, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more explicit about the nature of the results.

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 implies the tool is used to find MCP servers, which is obvious from the name and title. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_server or search_agents, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear from the resource type but not elaborated.

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