Neuronto Agentic Resource Discovery (ARD) Index

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it explains the federated search behavior, that results include relevance scores and endpoints, and explicitly warns that the score is relevance-only, not a trust/safety rating. This is valuable caveat for an agent.

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 earning its place: the first states scope, the second states output, the third clarifies score meaning. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the caller receives: ranked matches, relevance score, endpoint, and registry provenance. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, though the federated-search wording loosely reinforces the federate parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: it searches across an index plus every public ARD registry for callable capabilities. It also names concrete resource types and the return contents, distinguishing it from the more focused sibling find_tool.

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?

It gives a clear use context: when you need to find a callable capability for a task across multiple registries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are read back from a live server's tools/list, so names and schemas are what the server actually exposes rather than what descriptions claim. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and verification behavior are front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation is placed exactly where it is most useful.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations and a schema that covers the parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what results are and how they are sourced, though it does not specify the exact return shape or fields when with_schema is false; this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 67%, and the schema already documents query and with_schema. The description reinforces query semantics with 'by name and behaviour' and explains with_schema's purpose, but it does not add meaningful detail about the limit parameter beyond what the schema's min/max/default already communicates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('individual MCP tools by name and behaviour'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from searching by server. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling find_resource by naming the exact alternative condition.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: use this tool when you know the shape of the call you need, and use find_resource when looking for a service. This is direct, actionable routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the verification behavior: an endpoint 'must complete an MCP initialize handshake' and a domain 'must serve a manifest that parses.' It also reassures the agent that 'nothing is taken on trust,' adding meaningful operational context that the annotations do not provide.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the parameter mapping is compact, and the verification behavior earns its place. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and helpful annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter selection, and verification. It does not describe the response/error format, and there is no output schema to fall back on, which is a minor completeness gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pairing each parameter with its intended usage and validation requirement, clarifying that endpoint means an MCP server URL and domain means a site serving an ARD manifest. This goes beyond the schema but could have specified the either/or selection rule more explicitly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List an MCP server or an ARD-publishing domain in this index so other agents can discover it.' It clearly distinguishes the publish/registration intent from the sibling find tools, and the two supported forms (endpoint vs domain) are explicit.

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 gives concrete guidance on which input to provide: 'Give `endpoint` for an MCP server URL, or `domain` for a site that serves an ARD manifest.' It implies this tool is for registering resources rather than discovering them, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what the statistics cover and the concept of introspection verification. No side-effect or return-format disclosure, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

A single sentence that packs four distinct aspects of the statistics without redundancy. It is front-loaded with 'How large this index is' and avoids filler.

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 parameterless read-only stats tool, the description covers what the operation tells you. There is no output schema, so a structured return format isn't specified, but the listed categories are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's value. Minor gap: no explicit statement of the output representation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivial. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description is not required to elaborate parameter semantics.

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 enumerates the exact content of the statistics (size, contents, verification, federated registries), which makes the tool's purpose identifiable. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'return' or 'show', but the title and description together clearly indicate a stats/inspection tool, and it is distinct from the find_* siblings.

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 the tool is for retrieving index statistics, but does not state when to use it in preference to find_resource/find_tool, nor any exclusions. The purpose difference is obvious enough that an agent can infer usage, but explicit guidance is absent.

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