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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add value beyond them by disclosing result ordering ("best first") and result content (summaries with install hints and links), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is found and how results are ordered before describing the return shape. Every clause carries information.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, ordering and return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around whether filters combine and how limit shapes output, but nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by indicating the query accepts product names and task descriptions as well as bare keywords; it says nothing about the client, category, transport, or limit parameters, which the schema already handles.

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?

"Find MCP servers by keyword, product or task, best first" states a specific verb (find), a specific resource (MCP servers), and the ranking behavior. The resource makes it distinct from search_skills, but no sibling such as get_server or list_categories is named to sharpen the boundary between discovery and retrieval.

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 a keyword/product/task discovery use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to get_server for details or list_categories for category slugs (that pointer lives only in the schema). Usage is inferable from the search framing, which is the definition of a 3.

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