search_factsSearch checked facts about getting a family ready for illness or death: Medicare permission forms, Social Security, hospital stays, unclaimed money, and more. Each result has the official source, the date checked, and a guide link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Plain words, like "medicare form for family" or "social security representative payee" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what each result contains — official source, date checked, guide link — which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits result count, ranking, and empty-result behavior.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The subject matter and domain are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the return-value information an agent needs. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.
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 single-parameter, annotated, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain boundaries, and result fields — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result volume, ranking, and what happens with no matches.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with concrete example phrasings ('medicare form for family'). The description contributes domain context but no additional syntax, normalization, or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
Names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('checked facts'), then scopes it with concrete domain examples (Medicare permission forms, Social Security, hospital stays, unclaimed money). This is far from a tautology, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like get_form, state_rules, or agency_permissions.
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 domain framing implies when the tool is relevant, and the statement that results carry an 'official source' and 'date checked' hints it is a discovery-first tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative for narrower questions (e.g., a specific form fetch).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.