search_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the scope ('every mounted MCP server'), the return format (qualified ids), and a critical behavioral requirement (must load before calling). This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear expectation of how search results are used. Minor gaps include lack of pagination or error behavior, but the provided details are substantive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema information.

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 relatively simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope, return format, and required next step. The only notable omission is behavior when no results are found or when limit applies, but the schema partially addresses limit. Overall, sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema descriptions only cover 50% of parameters (query has a description, limit does not). The description adds no parameter meaning, failing to explain the limit parameter or its effect on result count. Since schema coverage is not high, the description should compensate, but it remains silent on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action ('Search across every mounted MCP server') and its purpose ('for tools matching a query'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like load_tool or call_tool. It also explains the return format (qualified ids) and the next step, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the usage context: use this when you need to discover tools across mounted servers. It provides a clear follow-up instruction ('load one with load_tool before calling it'), indicating that search results are not directly callable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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