Search Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavior beyond those: it is a local read-only operation, scoped to the bundled public index, and returns authoritative MCP resource URIs and snippets while explicitly not searching customer data or private guides. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the action and scope; the second states the return type and exclusions. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description covers the scope, return content, and exclusions. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly without needing additional explanation.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both query and limit, including default and bounds. The description does not add much parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names the specific action ('Search'), the resource ('bundled public SignalEDI developer index'), and the output ('authoritative MCP resource URIs and short snippets'). It also explicitly excludes customer data and private partner guides, which helps distinguish it from broad retrieval or sibling lookups like lookup_x12 and lookup_element_definition.

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 gives a clear scope and states what it does not search (customer data, private guides), which is a useful boundary. However, it does not explicitly name or route to any sibling alternative for structured lookups (e.g., lookup_x12 or get_document_schema), so when-to-use guidance remains mostly implied rather than fully explicit.

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