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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses ranking order (user rating first, then adoption), what each hit carries (rating, safety grade, adoption score), and the hiding behavior for D/F grades unless min_grade says otherwise. It does not mention pagination or whether results are live vs cached, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 sentences, all informative, with the most important behavior (ranking and grade hiding) front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context: ranking, result contents, and grade filtering. It does not describe result count or pagination, but the schema's limit parameter and the description's ranking details make the tool callable. Slightly more on result shape would make it complete.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning for min_grade by explaining the D/F hiding behavior, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add detail for limit, remote_only, reviewed_only, certified_only, or max_price_micros beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('MCP servers'), and the input style ('in plain words'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing ranking and filtering behavior, so an agent can tell it apart from call/describe/balance 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?

The description implies when to use it: when you need to discover MCP servers for a job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set (balance, call, describe) is clearly different in function, and the description's 'Find MCP servers' is enough context. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance keeps it from a 5.

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