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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature and the returned fields (name, url, summary, tags), which are key behavioral traits for a search tool. It does not mention rate limits or result ordering, but the safety profile and output shape are clearly stated.

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. The first front-loads scope and purpose, the second covers return fields and read-only status without any 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?

For a simple search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, return values, and read-only status sufficiently. The main gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the core functionality is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource (Anclum's catalogue of MCP servers, agent skills, projects, and AI tools). The purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings by its search nature, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_tool or list_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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_tool, list_categories, or other search tools. The description only defines what the tool does, not the conditions or alternatives for its use.

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