search_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral transparency. It only restates filter capabilities already in the schema, missing details like pagination, sorting defaults, or response structure beyond what the output schema provides.

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, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides necessary 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?

Given the complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks integration clues like how filters combine (AND/OR) or default sorting behavior. The output schema covers returns, so return details are not needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a summary of filters but no additional nuance beyond the schema. The sort and limit parameters are not mentioned in the description.

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 clearly states the tool searches MCP servers in a specific catalog, with a specific verb 'Search' and resource. It lists filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server or list_categories.

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 usage for searching and filtering but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. For instance, it does not mention that for browsing all servers without filters, one should use list_hot or list_trending, or that get_server is for details.

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