search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return behavior ('Returns up to limit matching entries each with a type'), and describes how to act on results, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss error/pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and succinctly adds usage guidance. Every sentence serves a role with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search operation, output schema exists, and the description covers the query capabilities, limit behavior, and follow-up action (call_tool/use_skill). No significant gaps remain.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'query' can be a name, description, or regex, and that 'limit' controls the maximum number of returned entries. Since schema coverage is 0%, this semantic clarification is valuable.

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 function: 'Search available MCP tools and Skills by name, description, or regex.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('MCP tools and Skills'), and distinguishes from siblings by explaining that results should be consumed via call_tool or use_skill.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool (for discovery) and explicitly directs the agent to use call_tool or use_skill for invocation. It does not list exclusions or alternatives explicitly, but provides clear contextual guidance.

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