Search reviews

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a useful behavioral constraint: anonymous searches return at most five results. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about output volume. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, and a behavioral limitation. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple read-only search tool with a fully documented input schema, optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what to search, when to use it, and the anonymous result cap. No critical detail needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and each of the four parameters already has its own descriptive text, so the description does not need to restate parameter meaning. The description's anonymous-result note complements the limit parameter at a behavioral level rather than adding parameter-level semantics. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action and resource: searching what people and agents actually experienced with products, APIs, services, places, or organizations. This aligns well with the title 'Search reviews' and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_mcp or inspect_mcp.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: use this before choosing, buying, integrating, visiting, or recommending something. This is clear contextual direction for an agent. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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