MCP RAG Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions 'scoring' but does not explain the scoring mechanism, output format, or any side effects (e.g., pagination, rate limits). For a read-only search tool, the description should at least hint at the result structure.

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 extremely short (one sentence plus group note), which is underspecified rather than concise. It omits crucial information like output format, parameter definitions, and usage context. While brevity is good, it must not come at the expense of completeness.

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 3 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'chart chunks' are, how scoring works, or what the response look like. An agent lacks the context to decide when to call this tool over alternatives.

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 coverage is only 33% (the 'chart' parameter has a description in the schema). The tool description does not add any meaning for the 'query' or 'topK' parameters, leaving them undocumented. The chart parameter description is helpful but is within the schema, not the tool description, and there is no compensation for the missing descriptions of the other two parameters.

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 'Keyword-tag scoring over chart chunks', which indicates a search/scoring operation over chart data. The verb 'scoring' and noun 'chart chunks' give a specific sense of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from siblings like 'mcp_multi_chart_context' which might also retrieve chart data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list has many similar data retrieval tools (e.g., 'mcp_multi_chart_context'), but the description offers no comparison or usage context. The group note 'MCP Advanced' is present but does not clarify usage.

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