Khan Academy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'matching content with titles, types, and URLs' but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the search scope and target resources, the second describes the return format. There's zero waste or redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (search functionality with 2 parameters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format in detail (beyond mentioning titles, types, and URLs), doesn't address behavioral constraints, and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. For a search tool without structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as search syntax examples or result ordering. This meets the baseline expectation 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 specific action ('Search Khan Academy') and resources targeted ('videos, articles, exercises, and courses'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_content, get_course, or list_subjects which appear to retrieve specific content rather than perform searches. It provides a comprehensive verb+resource combination.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_content or get_course. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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