recommend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool uses 'AgentForge semantic search + trust filter', which is helpful, but it does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, or any rate limits. A score of 3 is fair because the description adds meaningful technical context but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences plus an example; every clause serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a concrete example to illustrate usage. No wasted words.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete for a search/recommendation tool. It covers the input format (natural language), the filtering mechanism (trust filter), and provides an example. A minor gap is not specifying the output format, but for a recommendation tool, the lack of an output schema is less critical.

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 33% (only 'query' has a description). The description adds semantics for the purpose of the tool but does not elaborate on parameters beyond the example. However, it provides a natural-language context that helps infer the role of 'query', and the default values for 'min_overall' and 'limit' are self-explanatory. Given the moderate coverage, the description provides added value by framing the use case.

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 ('recommend'), a clear resource ('MCP servers'), and the filtering criterion ('by trust'). It also provides a concrete example ('validate Czech VAT IDs and convert ISDOC invoices'), which distinguishes it from siblings like check_trust or list_trusted.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: given a natural-language use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with siblings, though the example and purpose imply it's for recommendations rather than trust checking or listing.

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