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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior ('up to 20 servers per page') and the default sort ('token cost by default'), but does not state that it is read-only, whether results are exhaustive, or any rate/auth constraints.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by filtering, sorting, and pagination details. No wasted words or redundant restatement.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema description coverage, the description covers core search behavior but omits read-only guarantees and deeper parameter guidance. It is adequate but not fully 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 50%. The description adds useful meaning by specifying the searchable fields for query, the default sort key, and page size. However, the sort and status enum values remain unexplained and the 'optional filters' phrasing is vague regarding status semantics.

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 ('Find') and resource ('servers'), names searchable fields (name, title, description, host), and notes optional filters plus default sorting. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_server or check_server.

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 implied: search by words with optional filters and pagination. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over lookup_server, check_server, or registry_summary, leaving the agent to infer.

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