chiark-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions search scope and quality constraints but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements for using the tool itself, pagination behavior, or what 'best' means algorithmically. The description provides basic operational context but lacks deeper 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and key capabilities. It's front-loaded with the core function and follows with constraint details. While very efficient, it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure for readability.

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?

For a search tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does but lacks information about return format, result structure, or error conditions. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more complete operational context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing some filter types in the description text, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples beyond what's in the parameter 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 verb ('find') and resource ('AI agents'), specifies the scope ('2,000+ agents across A2A and MCP ecosystems'), and lists key quality constraints. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_agent_status or get_agent_score by focusing on discovery rather than status checking or scoring.

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 implies usage context ('for a given task') and lists available filters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ecosystem_stats or report_outcome. It provides clear filtering capabilities but lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the purpose statement.

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