mcp-docs

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 does not disclose what happens when a question is asked, whether it returns an answer, any limitations, or whether it is a read-only operation. The single sentence provides no behavioral context.

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 with no filler, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is also under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness, but it does earn its place by stating the primary function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description does communicate the basic purpose, but it lacks usage guidance, expected output, and any behavioral caveats. The presence of a sibling tool without differentiation guidance makes it incomplete.

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 covers the single parameter fully with description. The tool description adds 'technical' as a qualifier, providing slight additional meaning about the type of question. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the work.

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 clear verb ('ask') and specific resource ('technical questions about FusionAuth'), distinguishing it from the sibling search_fusionauth_sources which searches sources. However, it doesn't specify the scope or expected behavior beyond asking questions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus search_fusionauth_sources, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description only states a general function.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explain what sources are included, whether authentication is needed, how results are returned, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's purpose. It earns its place entirely.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is still quite thin. It doesn't clarify what 'documentation sources' means, how search results are presented, or what makes this different from ask_fusionauth_question. More context would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema provides a description for the single parameter ('The search query to find relevant FusionAuth documentation'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Search FusionAuth documentation sources.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('FusionAuth documentation sources'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool ask_fusionauth_question, the action is distinct enough that a user can infer the difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative ask_fusionauth_question. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. Users are left to infer when searching documentation sources is appropriate.

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