search-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that output is the page's main text as plain text, but says nothing about redirects, non-HTML content, size limits, or rendering of dynamic pages — relevant for an open-world fetch. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Every clause (public, http(s), main text, plain text) carries 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 one-parameter tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and return shape sufficiently. Remaining gaps (redirect handling, content-type behavior, size limits) are secondary but would matter for open-world fetches.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that private/loopback hosts are rejected. The description's 'public http(s) URL' phrasing reinforces but does not extend that, so the schema is doing the work — baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (public http(s) URL) and states the transformation applied (main text content as plain text). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling search_web, so an agent must infer the fetch-vs-search distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'public http(s) URL' signals the eligibility constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of search_web as the alternative for discovering URLs. An agent can guess the routing but is not told 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety and external-reach profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds the useful context that results include titles, URLs, and snippets, but says nothing about ranking, rate limits, or result variability.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording and is front-loaded on the action. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which limits its usefulness but not its conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the core action and return fields are adequately described. However, the lack of any guidance relative to the sibling fetch_url leaves a meaningful gap in agent routing.

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%, with both query and count already documented in the schema, including the 1-10 default-5 range. The description adds no query syntax, freshness, or region semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (search the web) and even names the return shape (titles, URLs, snippets). It does not distinguish the tool from its sibling fetch_url, so an agent must infer that this is for discovery rather than retrieval.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling fetch_url as the alternative for retrieving a known URL. The agent is left to infer the search-vs-fetch distinction entirely.

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