nist-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Default shows only the latest revision of each document' and specifies the return format 'Returns matching publications with ID, title, date, and series.' This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, specifying return format and alternative tool, and providing exclusion guidance. There is zero wasted text, and the most critical information (what the tool does) appears first.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and sibling tool differentiation without needing to explain parameters or return values that are already documented elsewhere.

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 all 8 parameters. The description mentions 'Default shows only the latest revision of each document' which aligns with the latest_only parameter's default value, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Search NIST publications by keyword across all series' with specific series listed (SP 800, SP 1800, FIPS, IR, CSWP, AI). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning get_publication for full details and search_controls for SP 800-53 security controls, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_publication for full details on a specific publication' and 'Do NOT use this for SP 800-53 security controls -- use search_controls instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions with named alternatives.

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