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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned fields (categories, requiresScope, one-line descriptions, matched use-case tags) and the cost note "Free for all plans (discovery surface)," which matters for planning. It does not discuss result limits or ranking order.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and facets, then usage, then return shape, then cost. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical "(discovery surface)" is slightly redundant with the surrounding clause.

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 description need not explain return values in detail, yet it does summarize them helpfully. For a simple 3-optional-parameter read tool this is close to complete; the only gap is guidance on combining or omitting the filters.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it names all three parameters (query, category, intent). However, it never distinguishes what 'intent' means versus 'query', nor whether filters combine with AND semantics or what happens when all are omitted given zero required parameters. It names the parameters without disambiguating them.

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 and resource (search/filter the MCP tool catalog) and names the exact facets (free-text query, category, intent). This is unmistakably the meta-discovery tool and cannot be confused with any of the content siblings like search_posts or list_drafts.

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?

"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" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly names the alternative (scanning all descriptions manually). It stops short of explicit exclusions or precedence rules, e.g. when to prefer a targeted sibling like search_posts over this catalog search.

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