Search Action1 Capabilities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are true, and destructiveHint is false. The description adds that the tool returns 'capabilities and examples', which is useful context about the output, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 only, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every word is functional and contributes to understanding, with no redundancy.

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's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers its purpose and when to use it. It is complete for a discovery tool, though it could optionally describe the structure of returned results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not elaborate on the 'query' or 'limit' parameters beyond their names. While the parameter names are self-explanatory (query for search term, limit for max results), the lack of any parameter guidance in the description means it adds minimal value over the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search the Action1 MCP server capabilities and examples', specifying verb (search) and resource (capabilities and examples). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints by suggesting it should be used first to decide which tool to call.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this first when deciding which tool to call.', providing clear context for when to invoke it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools are all data retrieval tools, making the usage guidance clear.

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