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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are ranked, include observed status and ranking signals, and particularly that result text is untrusted third-party metadata—an important trust consideration not inferable from the schema.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and a critical security caveat. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what to search, what results contain, and how to treat result content. It stops short of describing rank ordering details or the semantics of all filters, but nothing critical prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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 60%, and the tool description reinforces the meaning of the query parameter by explaining natural-language capability/task search. However, it adds no detail about limit, status, protocols, or remoteOnly beyond what the schema already provides, leaving those partially or fully undocumented parameters somewhat under-specified.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('indexed agents, MCP servers and tools'), and a defining method ('by natural-language capability or task'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_agent or check_status, which target specific entries rather than discovery.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find agents or tools by capability or task expressed in natural language. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools.

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