gateway.catalog_search

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that the tool returns compact capability cards without full schemas and can include offline servers when include_offline is true. It does not mention performance or side effects, but as a read-only search, this is sufficient.

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 highly concise with four sentences, each adding essential information. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, and no sentences are redundant.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, output format, and parameter usage. It lacks details on pagination or ordering, but given the tool's role as a primary entry point and the lack of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 description adds significant context to the parameters by explaining that filters narrow by server, tags, or risk level, and that include_offline discovers provisionable servers. This complements the 75% schema coverage and goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a search for available tools across all connected MCP servers, specifies the return format (compact capability cards), and distinguishes it as the primary tool discovery entry point, setting it apart from siblings like 'search_registry' and 'describe'.

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 clear usage context: it is the primary entry point for discovery, and suggests using filters and include_offline for specific scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives (e.g., 'describe' for full schemas).

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