gateway.catalog_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema by mentioning the return format ('compact capability cards without full schemas') and the behavior of include_offline for discovering 'provisionable servers not yet running.' It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by relevant filter/offline usage and a positioning statement. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return type, filtering options, offline discovery, and its role in the wider system. It lacks explicit return field details, but the schema's limit parameter and the mention of 'compact capability cards' provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 75%, and the schema already documents each parameter, including query matching behavior and filter meanings. The description adds limited new parameter semantics, only elaborating that include_offline discovers provisionable servers. Since the schema covers most parameter meaning, the description provides marginal added value beyond baseline.

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 for available tools across all connected MCP servers.' It also differentiates this tool from siblings by noting it returns 'compact capability cards without full schemas' and positioning it as 'the primary tool discovery entry point,' which distinguishes it from more specific tools like gateway.describe or gateway.search_registry.

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 clear usage context by identifying this as the primary discovery entry point and explaining how filters and include_offline refine results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for full schema details, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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