search_aerospace_tools

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: search modes (regex, text, auto), max_results limit, category filter, return format (JSON with tool references), and error handling (errors returned in JSON, no exceptions). This provides complete behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by a usage benefit paragraph, then an Args section. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the first two sentences. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and the presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description covers all essential context: input parameters with details, return format, and error handling. It is complete for a search/discovery tool with 4 parameters and a clear result type.

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%, but the description explains each parameter in detail: query (regex pattern or natural language), search_type (modes with examples), max_results (default 5, max 10), category (optional filter with examples). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 searches for aerospace-mcp tools by name, description, or functionality. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('search for aerospace-mcp tools') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it enables dynamic tool discovery without loading all 34+ definitions upfront.

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 explains the tool allows finding relevant tools without loading all definitions, implying use when tool discovery is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools like select_aerospace_tool, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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