Plan Search Workflow

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true) are consistent with the description, which indicates no destructive actions. The description adds behavioral context: the tool plans and recommends, rather than performing a search directly, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and usage guidance, making it highly 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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema available), the description adequately covers the tool's role as a planner that recommends among sibling tools. It does not detail output or planning logic, but the output schema likely covers that. Minimal but sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it relies on the schema's descriptions, which are already clear. No extra semantics are provided.

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: 'Plan the MCP-first search workflow for an exploratory objective and recommend...' It specifies the verb (plan), resource (search workflow), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search.literal, search.regex, index.ensure, and query.explain.

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 indicates when to use the tool: 'for an exploratory objective' and that it will recommend among alternative tools (e.g., ensure index, literal search). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the guidance is still effective.

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