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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the default sort order (exact Claude token cost), the 20-per-page cap, and the page-to-cursor handoff at page 20. It stops short of describing result contents or rate/limit behavior.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The search scope and default sort are front-loaded, with pagination as the follow-on practical detail.

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 parameter-light search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call and paginate correctly. It could still say more about what a returned server record contains, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 only 60%, and the description compensates by clarifying the default sort value and the page/cursor interaction (pages valid to 20, then use the `next` cursor) — meaning not derivable from the raw schema. It does not explain the `status` enum or the sort enum variants, leaving some gaps.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Find servers") and even names the matchable fields (name, title, description, host), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_server or check_server, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus lookup_server, check_server, or registry_summary. It hints that filters are optional and describes pagination mechanics, but provides no routing guidance or exclusion conditions.

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