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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds that results come from tools/list as the servers report them and include server attribution plus measurements, but leaves vague what 'measurements' means and how the freshness filters (reachable, min_success_7d) behave.

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?

Two sentences, no fat, and the core lookup behavior plus a worked example are front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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 ten-parameter faceted search with no output schema, the description should sketch result shape and pagination behavior. It names server attribution and measurements but says nothing about limit/offset semantics or result ordering, leaving 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 coverage is 70% and the description only illustrates the required 'q' parameter. It adds nothing about the faceted filters (risk, auth, transport, capability, reachable, min_success_7d) beyond what the schema's short descriptions already give.

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 clear verb+resource: find individual tools by name and description, returning the owning server and measurements. The phrase 'individual tools' implicitly separates it from search_servers, but the sibling is never named, so the contrast requires inference.

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?

Gives a query example ('pdf table extraction') but no guidance on when to use this versus search_servers, list_categories, or get_server. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated for the ten filter parameters.

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