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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses key traits: substring rather than fuzzy matching, star-based ordering when available, combined optional filters, and limit/offset pagination. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but for a read-oriented search tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: matching semantics, filters, ordering, and pagination come first, followed by the usage condition. Every clause adds useful information without 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?

Given eight parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation: it explains matching, filters, ordering, pagination, and intended use. Minor missing details about filter value formats remain, but the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does name every parameter’s role: query searches canonical_key/name/description, the optional filters run together, and limit/offset page results. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify formats such as the date syntax for pushed_before or allowed category values.

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 and resource: search MCP servers. It also specifies the searchable fields (canonical_key, name, description) and matching mode (substring, not fuzzy), making it immediately distinguishable from summary/profile siblings.

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?

Gives a clear use case: when the user provides a name, task word, or filter and wants keys and facts. It includes examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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