Fellow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full-text search' and 'cached meeting notes,' which implies read-only behavior and a search scope, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, result format, pagination, or what 'cached' entails (e.g., freshness, storage). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality: 'Full-text search across all cached meeting notes. Searches titles and content.' Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a search operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of notes, snippets, relevance scores), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., search algorithm, case sensitivity). For a search tool, this omission hinders the agent's ability to use it effectively, as the output behavior is unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema as 'Search query to find in meeting titles or content.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating that it searches 'titles and content.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Full-text search across all cached meeting notes' with the specific action 'searches titles and content.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_meetings' by specifying it searches 'cached meeting notes' rather than meetings themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other note-related tools that might exist.

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 usage context by specifying 'cached meeting notes' and 'titles and content,' suggesting this is for searching note content rather than meeting metadata. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_meetings' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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