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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context about the indexed sources and security scoring, but it does not disclose result format, ranking behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or limitations of the search index.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource with no filler. Every phrase adds context about scope or scoring.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search with no required fields and no output schema, the description conveys the core scope sufficiently for basic invocation. Minor gaps remain around return expectations and search behavior, but they are not critical for this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's 'Search query' and 'Filter by category'.

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 and resource: 'Search the MarketNow registry of indexed MCP servers,' and adds useful scope detail ('68k+ across GitHub, npm and PyPI, security-first scored'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like marketnow_verify_trust or marketnow_submit_skill.

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 implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this is for finding MCP servers in the registry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no direction toward alternatives among the siblings.

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