gateway_search_tools

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds scope by noting the search covers 'known internal' route declarations. It does not disclose what gets returned, whether an empty query lists everything, or how results are ordered, but the safety profile is handled by the annotation.

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, and every word contributes to the purpose. It is appropriately terse for a simple search operation, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return format need not be explained, the description lacks usage context, query semantics, and differentiation from sibling searches. This leaves it too sparse for an agent to confidently select it over similar search tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'query' parameterainer, and the tool description only says 'Search ...' without explaining what the query matches (route names, paths, descriptions) or how the default empty string behaves. The property name 'query' gives basic meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema 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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('known internal MCP route declarations'), which clearly distinguishes it from data-search siblings like gateway_knowledge_search or gateway_company_search. It could be more explicit about what an 'MCP route declaration' is, but the core purpose is readable and specific.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The implied use case is discovering internal gateway routes, but an agent is left to infer that rather than being told.

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