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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about returned fields (rec_ ids, on-record-since dates, latest versions), but says nothing about ranking, empty-result behavior, or the limit default of this potentially multi-result search.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the searchable domains first and the return shape last; nothing is padded. It is dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description's mention of return fields is genuinely valuable. However, for a 3-parameter search with zero schema description coverage and unclear relationship to record_get/record_versions, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies only 'query' as matching name or words, while the type enum (mcp_server / npm_package / pypi_package) and the limit cap of 50 are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 specific verb (find) and resource (records), and scopes the domain to MCP servers and npm/PyPI packages. It implicitly contrasts with record_get/record_versions by being a name/keyword lookup, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before record_get. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over check, record_get, or record_versions, and no guidance on when to use the type filter instead of free-text query.

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