Combined MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs searches with caching for performance and supports three search types. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'cached for performance' entails operationally.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement first, followed by key capabilities, behavioral note about caching, and clear parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy 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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), and no annotations, the description provides solid coverage of purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. It could be more complete by addressing error cases or search result format, but covers the essentials well for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'query' as search text, 'top_k' as maximum results with default, and 'search_type' as semantic/keyword/hybrid with default. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though could elaborate on parameter interactions.

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: 'Search the knowledge base vector store' with specific search methods (semantic, keyword, hybrid). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'build_vectorstore' (creation) and 'run_query' (likely SQL queries), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search-related tools if they 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 through search method options (semantic, keyword, hybrid) and mentions caching for performance, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_query' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks explicit comparative context.

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