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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's genuinely additive content is the trust warning that names/categories are unverified publisher metadata and that query data is never an instruction — useful prompt-injection context. It still says nothing about result ordering, whether the registry is queried live, or how partial matches behave, so it is additive but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the two safety caveats that justify their space. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter search with full schema coverage and complete annotations, and no output schema to explain, this is close to sufficient. The main residual gap is result behavior — ordering, matching semantics, and what happens with an empty query — none of which the description addresses.

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 100% and all four parameters are documented, including the enumerated connection values and the category list, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the caveat that names and categories come from untrusted publisher metadata, which is relevant framing but not parameter-specific guidance (e.g. how query matches are performed). Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Search official MCP Registry entries.' An agent can tell this is a discovery/search tool versus the sibling get_mcp_server_metadata, which by name alone reads as a single-record fetch. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the scope of what is searched, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 by the verb 'Search' — there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus get_mcp_server_metadata or get_eviduct_network_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the discovery role, but nothing routes it deliberately.

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