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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral trait: it does not pad the stack with unnecessary MCPs and reports uncovered capabilities. This is transparency about the tool's honesty and completeness, which is useful and not contradicted by any annotation.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and output, then adds two behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

The description covers the main input (multi-step workflow) and output components (roles, order, required/optional, uncovered capabilities). With an output schema present, return-value details need not be repeated. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the optional parameters beyond listing them in the schema, but those are self-explanatory from names. The description is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 low (20% – only 'task' has a description), so the description should compensate for the other four parameters. It does not elaborate on 'platform', 'pricing_preference', 'deployment_preference', or 'open_source_preference' — their meaning is left to names alone. The description mentions 'workflow' in the context of 'task', but provides no additional semantics for the optional inputs.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('recommend'), a precise object ('the set of MCPs needed'), and a scope ('for a multi-step workflow'). It explicitly lists output components (roles, order, required vs optional) and differentiates it from siblings like 'find_mcp_for_task' (single-task) and 'compare_mcps' (comparison), so an agent can tell it apart without ambiguity.

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 usage ('For a multi-step workflow') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name sibling tools or state that it should be used instead of a single-task finder when the workflow has multiple steps, leaving the selection rules to inference.

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