API-Market MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve web search results' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, result format, pagination, or whether this is a real-time search versus cached results. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool with one parameter.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format results come in (HTML snippets, structured data, links only), how many results are returned, whether there's pagination, or any quality/recency characteristics. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'q' parameter as 'Search query'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query format examples, length limits, or special syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'web search results', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like Search_Images, Search_News, or Search_Videos, which all retrieve search results for different content types.

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 alternatives. With multiple search-related sibling tools (Search_Images, Search_News, Search_Videos, Search_for_nearby_places, etc.), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for general web search versus other search types.

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