search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the return structure, or explain how search_method affects behavior—significant gaps for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and a brief elaboration. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search operation with an output schema and fully described parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context such as safety profile, return details, and search_method implications. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that annotations would normally fill.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive schema entries covering 100% of the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions the query string and adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for limit or search_method.

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 searches registered MCP tools using a query string, giving a specific verb (search) and resource (registered MCP tools). It distinguishes from siblings like search_hot_tools by emphasizing 'registered tools' but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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 siblings such as search_hot_tools or list_tools_by_category. It only states what the tool does without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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