Search standard contract clause types by keyword to get plain-English definitions.
Search the reference library of standard clause types by keyword, e.g. 'liability' or 'renewal', and get plain-English definitions.
Args: query: Free-text search term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Search' and the result type ('plain-English definitions'), but does not mention matching behavior, return structure, or any limitations. For a simple search tool this is adequate but thin.
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 short, front-loaded with the core function, and includes a compact Args block. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds 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?
Given one required string parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input, and output type at a high level. It is missing details about whether results are ranked, how many definitions return, or how to handle no results, but these are not critical for a simple library search. The sibling set is distinct enough that an agent can select it without confusion.
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 provides only the parameter name and type (query: string) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by defining query as 'Free-text search term' and giving concrete examples ('liability' or 'renewal'). This makes the expected input clear, though it does not specify constraints like max length or allowed phrasing.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('reference library of standard clause types'), and describes the outcome ('get plain-English definitions'). The examples 'liability' or 'renewal' clarify the resource type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on contract documents, so the agent can identify it as a knowledge-base lookup.
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 a use case (looking up definitions of clause types) but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over extract_clauses, missing_clauses, or other siblings. There are no 'when not to use' or alternative routing instructions. The context is enough for a human, but the agent gets no explicit decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.