search_servers

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 only says 'Search' without disclosing behavior such as return format, pagination, or authorization requirements. The description is insufficient to inform an agent about the operational characteristics of the search.

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 a single sentence, 13 words, and directly front-loads the action ('Search') and resource ('CuratedMCP catalog'). No unnecessary words or 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?

The description gives the core purpose but lacks details about the output (e.g., what the search returns) and does not compensate for the absence of an output schema. Given the tool's relative simplicity, this is minimally sufficient but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, with all three parameters (query, category, limit) described in the input schema. The description mentions 'keyword, category, or use case' which loosely maps to query/category, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Search the CuratedMCP catalog for MCP servers by keyword, category, or use case.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_server_details, install_server, list_categories, and add_to_stack, which have different purposes.

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 discovery ('Search... by keyword, category, or use case') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving usage context partially implied.

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