find

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about filtering, projection, sorting, and pagination, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default limits, return format, or how the database is selected. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the optional capabilities. There is no redundant wording, and every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the optional behaviors an agent needs to know. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns multiple documents and by giving explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 seven parameters in detail. The description mentions filter, projection, sort, and pagination, which reinforces the schema but adds little beyond it. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Cari dokumen dalam koleksi') and enumerates the key features: optional filter, field projection, sort, and pagination. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like find_one or aggregate.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool searches documents in a collection with optional filtering, projection, sorting, and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use find versus find_one, get_by_id, count, or aggregate, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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