search_nodes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals crucial behavioral details: case-insensitive substring matching, exact type matching, the requirement of at least one filter, default to current page, and a flat array return format. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and constraints. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema data.

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 simple search tool with rich schema and readOnly annotation, the description fully covers the return type (flat array), defaults, filtering behavior, and required constraints. It is complete without needing an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraint by noting 'at least one of name or type is required' and clarifies the relationship between parameters (and/or), which the schema lacks. This elevates it to a 4.

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 it searches the node tree by case-insensitive name substring and/or exact node type. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like scan_nodes_by_types which focuses only on types, and get_node which fetches a specific node.

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 gives clear usage context by stating the required at least one of name or type, and the optional root parameter for subtree scoping. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable for when to use this tool.

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