MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'partial match search' and returns 'a dictionary containing the list of matching groups', which gives basic operational context. However, it lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation is redundant without added value. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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 moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics partially but misses behavioral details like authentication, pagination, and error handling. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'query' parameter as 'The search query to match against group names', adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter (Context object), leaving it partially undocumented. With one parameter well-described and one not, and low schema coverage, this meets the baseline for marginal compensation.

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 for groups by name' with the specific verb 'search' and resource 'groups'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' by specifying search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' which searches users rather than groups. The 'partial match search' detail adds specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' for listing groups or 'box_search_tool' for broader searches, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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