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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers side-effect safety. The description adds 'rank', implying ordering, but does not disclose return format, pagination via the limit parameter, ranking algorithm, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. It contributes minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and efficiently names the key filtering dimensions. No wasted words; it earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does not state what is returned (e.g., list of server IDs with scores) or how limit interacts with ranking. It covers all parameters via the schema, but overall tool behavior is under-specified for a 6-parameter tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 six parameters have descriptions. The description's mention of four dimensions aligns with parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool searches and ranks MCP servers, listing four specific criteria (capability, auth preference, client target, risk tolerance). This gives a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like recommend_servers or search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention recommend_servers, compare_servers, or any preconditions/exclusions. The description merely states the function without situational context, offering little help for tool selection among siblings.

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