mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the query syntax capabilities, providing concrete query patterns, and detailing functional operators like citations(), references(), trending(), etc. This helps the agent understand how to construct effective queries.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, syntax explanation, common patterns, specialized functions, and additional operators. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific, actionable information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a complex search tool.

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 complexity (search with multiple parameters and rich query syntax), the description provides excellent context about capabilities and usage patterns. With annotations covering safety, 100% schema coverage documenting parameters, and an output schema existing (though not shown), the description focuses appropriately on explaining the search functionality and query construction.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it provides context about query construction that indirectly relates to the 'query' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the NASA ADS database' with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('NASA ADS database'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on general search functionality rather than specialized operations like citation analysis (ads_citation_helper), metrics (ads_metrics), or object search (ads_object_search).

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 clear context about when to use this tool by explaining it 'Supports the full ADS query syntax' and giving specific examples for different search patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to sibling tools like ads_object_search or ads_citation_helper for specialized tasks.

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