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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search model, the return payload (tools, schemas, pricing tier, call instructions), and result limit. It could add a note about read-only behavior or failure modes, but overall it is transparent about its function.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and return details. Every sentence contributes information with 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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it does it, when to use it, and what it returns. Given that there is no output schema, the description's mention of output contents is helpful. Minor gaps: no detail on default behavior or edge cases, but it is complete enough for effective use.

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%, with each parameter well-documented. The description does not significantly add new meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention the 'exact call instructions' and 'pricing tier' in the output, which indirectly helps understand the purpose of the intent parameter. Baseline for high coverage is 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 states a specific action ('discovers the most relevant tools'), a specific mechanism ('local semantic search'), and clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings by framing it as a meta-tool for finding other tools. It is not vague or tautological.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool first when you are connected to this server but do not know which specific tool to call' and 'Do not use this tool if you already know the tool name — call that tool directly instead.' This perfectly distinguishes when to use vs. avoid.

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