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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches external public registries and returns the status Licium recorded when checking them. It also clarifies the domain by stating these are not bounty agents. While it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or data freshness, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey the core action, source, additional data (status), and an important clarifying exclusion. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and a key piece of return data (status), but it does not explain what other fields might be returned, how pagination works, or what 'checked' means in practice. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would be needed to fully prepare an agent, but the description is far from inadequate.

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 high (80%), with descriptions for url, limit, query, and cursor, and an enum for status. The description does not add much parameter detail beyond the schema, except that it clarifies the meaning of status ('including the status Licium recorded when checking them'), which is helpful but minor given the schema already documents most parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Search remote MCP endpoints from external public registries'. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'These are not Licium bounty agents', which is relevant given the bounty-related sibling tools. The title reinforces the same message.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for remote MCP endpoints from external public registries and wanting to know their recorded status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria beyond the note that they are not bounty agents, but the context is specific enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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