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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that, such as the live MCP handshake check for only_verified and that results carry the live verdict. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise enumeration of filters and a clarifying note on verification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers the search scope, filter dimensions, and result content (live verdict). It does not explain pagination or default results, but limit is defined in the schema. Overall sufficient for invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the only_verified logic and giving example integration slugs, but most parameter semantics are already fully specified in the schema. No major gaps but also no significant enrichment beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Search') and the resource ('MyMCPTools catalog of Model Context Protocol servers'), and lists specific filter dimensions. It distinguishes from siblings like get_mcp_server (which likely retrieves specific server details) and list_categories (which focuses on categories).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching or filtering the catalog. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the filter options and mention of live verdicts make the intended usage evident. Missing explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, so not a 5.

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