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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does name the key trait: 'Read-only' (non-mutating). It also compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the return shape (name, url, one-line summary, tags). It does not mention ranking/relevance behavior, rate limits, or auth needs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then what is returned, then the safety trait. No filler and nothing buried.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers corpus scope, return fields and read-only behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result ordering/pagination semantics beyond the schema's limit cap.

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 query, limit and category are already fully documented in the schema, including a max-50 cap and example values. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 a sharply bounded resource: SkillTide's catalogue of 7,500+ MCP servers, agent skills and open-source projects plus 1,500 AI tools. The scope is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from get_tool, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with its siblings, which is what a 5 would require.

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 by the verb 'search' — an agent will infer it should call this to discover entries — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_tool or list_categories, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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