Jina AI Remote MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optimal performance' with 'maximum 5 searches' and suggests 'best results' with diverse queries, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when timeout is reached. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third suggests query generation alternatives. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and has no wasted words.

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 parallel search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about purpose and usage. However, it lacks important details about return format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints that would be needed for complete understanding. The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects are under-specified.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'multiple search queries' which aligns with the 'searches' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context.

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 purpose: 'Run multiple arXiv searches in parallel for comprehensive research coverage and diverse academic angles.' It specifies the verb ('run multiple searches'), resource ('arXiv'), and scope ('in parallel'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_arxiv' beyond the parallel aspect.

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 context for when to use this tool: for 'comprehensive research coverage and diverse academic angles' with 'multiple search queries.' It explicitly mentions an alternative tool ('expand_query') for generating queries, but doesn't specify when to use this versus the sibling 'search_arxiv' tool.

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