Find Agent Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's behavioral disclosure is modest. It adds that the tool returns products with MCP connection configs, but lacks details about pagination, error conditions, or what happens if no services are found.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and usage context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, high schema coverage, clear annotations), the description covers purpose and behavior adequately. It lacks explicit mention of result format or pagination, but the context signals (no output schema, simple params) reduce the need for extensive detail.

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 both parameters already documented via descriptions. The description reiterates the service_type options (memory, auth, etc.) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds agent infrastructure services by type, listing specific examples (memory, auth, billing, logging, monitoring). It also explains the output includes MCP connection configs, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search.discover or search.details.

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 context by stating 'This is how agents discover infrastructure.' It identifies when to use (finding agent services) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., search.alternatives, search.compare) but no contrast is provided.

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