Jina AI Remote MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'for best results' and 'optimal performance' with max 5 searches, which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't disclose critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (no output schema exists). The description is adequate but lacks depth for a parallel search tool.

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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 (parallel searches with multiple parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and explicit differentiation from sibling tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it does imply the purpose of the 'searches' array ('multiple search queries that explore different research angles'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 SSRN searches in parallel for comprehensive social science research coverage and diverse academic angles.' It specifies the verb ('run'), resource ('SSRN searches'), and scope ('in parallel'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_ssrn' tool, which appears to be a single-search version.

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 on when to use this tool: for 'comprehensive social science research coverage and diverse academic angles' and suggests 'provide multiple search queries that explore different research angles and methodologies.' It also mentions an alternative tool ('expand_query') for generating queries, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling 'search_ssrn' tool for single searches.

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