topai_mcp_hub_registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The closing sentence 'Stateless, read-only, idempotent registry lookup' largely restates those annotations, with 'stateless' being the only genuinely additive trait. It adds some value but does not disclose pagination, result caps, or what a catalog entry contains.

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?

Three sentences, each doing a distinct job: what it does, when/when-not to use it, and its operational profile. Front-loaded with capability and routing guidance. The final sentence is partly redundant with the annotations, which is a minor deduction rather than a structural problem.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool with complete schema coverage and clean annotations, the routing information is sufficient. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what a lookup returns (e.g., tool names, descriptions, categories), which an agent choosing between discovery tools would benefit from knowing. Everything needed to invoke correctly is present, however.

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% for both optional parameters, so the schema already documents that `search` is a keyword substring match and `category` is a functional filter. The phrase 'by functional category or keyword' mirrors the schema without adding syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail (e.g., whether search is case-sensitive or how categories are enumerated). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs (introspects, searches) and a precise resource (the TopAI Sovereign Gateway catalog of MCP tools), plus the axes of search (functional category or keyword). This distinguishes it cleanly from the domain siblings like topai_web_to_markdown or topai_healthcare_validator, which are the tools it discovers rather than being one of them.

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 says when to use it ('when an autonomous agent wants to discover which specialized tools are available... before selecting one') and when not to ('Do not use to execute a domain tool directly'), naming the alternative pattern (call the specific `topai_*` tool once identified). Both the positive trigger and the exclusion are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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