CSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ranked matching' which adds useful behavioral context about result ordering. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially without an output schema). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with clear purpose, includes resource scope and method. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or fluff. Perfectly concise for a simple search tool.

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 single-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and method, but lacks details about return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints that would be needed for full completeness. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what results look like, but it doesn't.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema as 'Company name or ticker symbol to search for.' The description adds the context of 'ranked matching' which helps interpret how the query is used, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search'), target resource ('Colombo Stock Exchange companies'), and method ('by name or symbol using ranked matching'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_quote (specific quote) or get_top_gainers (predefined list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 when searching for companies by name or symbol, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_stock_quote (for specific symbols) or get_top_gainers/losers (for performance lists). No when-not-to-use instructions or prerequisites are mentioned. Usage context is clear but alternatives are not addressed.

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