Vid Kraken Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the return format (Markdown) and the accepted input forms (path or URL), which is real added value given there's no output schema, but it says nothing about what happens when a path doesn't exist or how large pages are handled.

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 front-loads the action and output format, then appends the fallback instruction. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, acceptable input forms, and where to go if the path is unknown. The only real gap is failure behavior for nonexistent paths, which is minor here.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by revealing that a full URL is accepted as well as a site path, and by giving a broader set of path examples (/pricing, /about, /blog/<slug>) than the schema's single docs example.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Return one Vid Kraken page") plus the output format (Markdown), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search_docs. An agent can tell from the first clause alone whether this is the retrieval tool it wants.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "Use search_docs to find paths." What's missing is the inverse constraint — nothing says get_doc is the wrong choice when the path is unknown or ambiguous — but the routing hint is clear enough in practice.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (best-matching pages, snippet, Markdown URL) and the two-stage search-then-fetch workflow. It omits ranking/relevance behavior and result-count semantics beyond the schema default.

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, no waste. Scope comes first, then the return shape and the follow-up tool, front-loaded where an agent will read it.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what corpus is searched, example query topics, the shape of results, and how to retrieve a full document. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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% — both 'query' (with example strings) and 'limit' (default 5, max 10) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter handling, 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a precisely scoped resource: Vid Kraken's API docs, endpoint references, MCP guide, pricing, and blog guides. The enumerated content domains and example topics make it unmistakable versus the single sibling 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling: results come back as snippets and the full page is read 'with get_doc'. That is a clear when-to-use-which rule, though it doesn't state any exclusions (e.g. when searching is pointless versus calling get_doc directly).

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