@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pricing (10₭ per search) which is useful cost context, but fails to describe critical behavioral aspects: what the search returns (web results format), whether it's real-time or cached, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that communicate the core function and pricing. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the front-loading could be improved by making the first sentence more informative about what the search actually does rather than just stating 'Run Deva web search resource.'

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (format, structure, or content of results), doesn't describe search capabilities (keywords, filters, advanced operators), and provides minimal behavioral context beyond pricing. The agent would struggle to understand how to effectively use this tool or interpret its results.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial with no parameters), so the baseline would be 3, but with zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there's no parameter information that needs to be conveyed beyond what's already clear from the schema.

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 'Run Deva web search resource' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'deva_ai_web_search' with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the action ('Run') and resource ('Deva web search'), it lacks specificity about what the search actually does or returns. Compared to siblings like 'deva_social_x_search', it doesn't clearly differentiate its web search functionality from social platform searches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'deva_social_x_search' and 'deva_social_agents_search', there's no indication of when web search is appropriate versus social platform searches or agent searches. The pricing information doesn't constitute usage guidance - it's cost information rather than functional context.

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