Search company context across Yonote index and source systems to retrieve relevant internal information for a query.
Search company context through the Yonote index and source systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| include_sources | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds the detail that the search spans 'the Yonote index and source systems,' which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose limits, pagination, or how parameters like max_chars affect results.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise, though it leaves out details that other dimensions require.
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?
With five parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool definition lacks enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema may cover return values, but parameter semantics and usage guidance are missing.
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% and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (kind, limit, query, max_chars, include_sources). It therefore fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Search company context' through the Yonote index and source systems. This conveys that the tool is a read-only company search and gives some differentiation from sibling search tools, but it does not explicitly contrast it with tools like gateway_company_get or gateway_knowledge_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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. An agent can only infer from the name and phrase 'Search company context' that it is meant for company-related lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.