search_servers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses tokenization, synonym expansion, ranking based on metadata and tool descriptions, and filters. However, it does not mention whether the search is read-only, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Still, it provides significant behavioral context.

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. The first sentence states purpose with an example, the second combines behavioral details and usage guidelines. No wasted words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers query semantics, internal processing, filter support, and sibling differentiation. It lacks details on return format (e.g., what fields are returned) and pagination (limit parameter is mentioned but not behavior beyond max). Still, it is fairly comprehensive for a search tool.

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 meaning by explaining that the query parameter accepts natural multi-word tasks and that tokenization/synonym expansion occurs. For other parameters (auth, category, minimum_grade, max_latency_ms), the description only references them generically, but the schema already describes them. Overall, the description adds moderate value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the MCP evidence registry for servers using natural multi-word tasks, with an example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tools (for tools) and get_trust_receipt/search_trust_evidence (for security evidence).

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use the tool and provides alternatives: 'Use get_trust_receipt or search_trust_evidence for security, data, citation, claim, and response evidence.' This gives clear guidance on when to use each sibling.

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