OpenSearch MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration or 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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format results are returned in, how many results might be expected, whether there's pagination, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of valid values, or clarify the relationship between parameters like 'query' and 'timeRange'.

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 action ('Search for logs') and target resource ('in any OpenSearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'searchAlerts' or 'monitorLogs', which likely have overlapping domains in log management.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'searchAlerts', 'exploreFieldValues', and 'monitorLogs' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those alternatives.

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