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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the cost model ('Free for all plans (discovery surface)') and what the result set contains, which goes beyond the annotation surface.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then return shape. Efficient, though the return-value sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

With an output schema present, the return values needn't be explained, so the description focusing on purpose and usage is reasonable. It is nearly complete, with the only real gap being query-vs-intent disambiguation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names the three filter dimensions ('free-text query, category, or intent') mapping to the three params, but does not explain the distinction between 'query' and 'intent' or give format guidance, leaving a key ambiguity unresolved.

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 filter') and resource ('the available MCP tool catalog'), and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_posts or list_drafts. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Useful when you have many tools available and want to narrow to the ones relevant to the user's current task without scanning every description.' It establishes when to reach for this tool, though it names no explicit when-not condition or alternative discovery mechanism.

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