gateway.search_registry

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 indicates the tool is a search operation returning package names and metadata, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks detailed behavioral context beyond the basic read-only nature implied by 'search'.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage condition, then providing the expected output and follow-up steps. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: trigger condition, output type, and next steps. It does not cover edge cases or output formatting, but the schema compensates. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficiently complete.

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 clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit'. The description adds context by stating the query is a 'natural language description of the capability needed', which aligns with the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('public MCP Registry'), and scope ('external servers not in the local manifest'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like gateway.catalog_search and gateway.request_capability by specifying the registry target and the condition for use.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this when gateway.request_capability returns not_available') and outlines the subsequent workflow ('call gateway.register_discovered_server then gateway.provision to install'). This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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