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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only'. It also discloses the return fields (id, title, url) beyond what annotations specify, adding valuable context about the output. No safety-critical behavior is hidden, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes value: 'ChatGPT-compatible' sets context, 'read-only' signals safety, and the return format is stated explicitly. There is no wasted text.

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 100% schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return format, and query examples. It lacks guidance on how this alias relates to sibling 'search_servers' and does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic search function.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. The description adds meaningful examples for the 'query' parameter (e.g., healthcare MCP, OAuth MCP servers), which helps users formulate search queries. It does not duplicate the schema's limit description but enhances understanding of query intent.

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?

The description clearly states it is a search tool that returns MCP server results with id, title, and url. The verb 'search' and resource 'MCP servers' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_servers', aside from calling itself an 'alias' without explaining what it is an alias for.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'search_servers' or any other sibling, nor does it provide context about preferred use cases or exclusions. The only hint is 'ChatGPT-compatible', which is vague and not elaborated.

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