find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, but it is consistent and does not contradict annotations. The schema contributes default limits and response byte caps, but those are not part of the description itself.

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 concise sentence with no filler, earning its place by specifying the target (MongoDB collection). It is appropriately short, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema, annotations), the description is minimal but covers the core function. It does not mention default limit or return behavior, but the schema and output schema fill those gaps. The description alone is adequate but not rich.

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 detailed descriptions for all seven parameters including sort syntax, filter syntax, limit default, and responseBytesLimit. The main description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a find query against a MongoDB collection'), clearly indicating a read operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like aggregate or count, though the term 'find' is a MongoDB-specific operation name.

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 lacks explicit when-to-use guidance. However, the schema's responseBytesLimit parameter description provides a clear alternative: if the entire query result is required, use the export tool instead. This gives some usage direction but does not cover alternatives like aggregate or count.

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