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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — spell correction, sourced listings, taxonomy terms returned, and per-listing MCP server presence — but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return summary, then examples, then the filter hint. Nothing is padded, though the examples and the mcp sentence slightly overlap with material already in the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming both the listing payload and matched taxonomy terms plus the embedded MCP server field. All three parameters are covered and the safety profile comes from annotations, leaving only result-ordering/pagination behavior unspecified.

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%, so query, limit and mcp are all documented with enum meaning already spelled out. The description reinforces mcp's intent ("keep only tools that connect to AI assistants") and that query accepts plain language, but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb (search) plus a clearly scoped resource set — tools, roles, tasks and sectors — and says what comes back (sourced tool listings plus matched taxonomy terms). It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with (get_tool, compare_tools, recommend_tools, list_taxonomy), so the boundary is inferable but not stated.

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?

Concrete query examples ("meeting transcription", "hotel manager") clarify the expected input shape, and the closing sentence tells the agent when to use the mcp filter. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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