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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses ranking order (title first, then tool name, then description) and that results include the server's tool list. It does not cover rate limits, empty results, or pagination, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first paragraph and a practical bulleted list for limit settings. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking, result contents, and limit selection. It does not elaborate on `sources` or `payment_protocol`, but the schema already documents those, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, and the description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining query types with examples and providing specific limit guidelines for different use cases. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 'Search MCP servers by server title/name, description, or by the tools they provide,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like catalog/inspect by focusing on discovery through queries, including natural language capabilities.

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?

Provides explicit, actionable guidance on setting the `limit` parameter based on request type (exploratory, task, directive). However, it does not mention when to use search over sibling tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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