broker_search_tools

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

The description discloses that it does not advertise every tool to the client, and the input schema's description adds details about profile visibility, mutating-upstream policy, and return behavior including skipped upstreams on failure, fully compensating for missing 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 main description is two focused sentences, and the schema description is also concise. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: searching, policy application, return of metadata, and links to sibling tools for next steps. It is complete for a search tool with simple parameters.

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 good parameter descriptions (limit's usage hint to keep small, query's examples). The main description adds no extra parameter context but the schema descriptions are thorough and provide guidance beyond basic definitions.

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 the profile-visible upstream MCP tool catalog, distinguishing it from siblings by specifying it is used first to get candidate tool names. The verb 'Search' and resource are specific and exact.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first when the task mentions a capability, service, keyword, or upstream prefix' and mentions alternatives like broker_describe_tool for exact schema details, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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