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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive): it discloses human review before listing, that publisher descriptions are unverified, that the content is data and not instructions (prompt-injection guard), and what the response contains ('where to connect and the tools each one reported'). Nothing here contradicts the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each sentence carries information, but the domain list appears twice (once in the opening, once in the 'use it when' examples), which is mild redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (connection details plus reported tools) and the trust level of the data. What remains thin is parameter-level guidance, but the safety and provenance context is otherwise 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 coverage is 67% and the description adds no guidance on how to use `kind`, `need`, or `limit` — the parenthetical domain words loosely echo the `kind` enum but do not explain selection. With the schema already documenting most parameters, this is the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource — finding other robotics MCP servers — and enumerates the domains it covers (ROS control, simulators, robot data, commerce). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like find_robots/find_parts, which search a robot catalog rather than a directory of servers.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use it when a task needs something this server does not do (controlling a robot, a live price, a simulation)'. Context for use is unambiguous, though no sibling alternative is named — which is acceptable since no sibling performs this function.

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