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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only' and names the exact return fields (name, url, one-line summary, tags), but says nothing about ranking, pagination beyond the limit param, empty-result behavior, or whether tag/category matching is fuzzy.

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: capability and corpus first, return shape second, safety note last. No filler, though the trailing 'Read-only' is a fragment that slightly breaks the flow.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches and what it returns, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and when to prefer the sibling lookup tools.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about how query, category, or limit interact (e.g. whether category narrows query results or replaces them), so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (search) and the resource scope (Anclum's catalogue of MCP servers, agent skills, open-source AI projects, non-developer AI tools). This scope implicitly distinguishes it from get_tool and list_categories, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for when the exact tool name is unknown. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_tool when...' routing or mention of list_categories for browsing by category, which would have made this a 4 or 5.

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