mcp_index_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the purpose, omitting details like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 very concise (7 words), but it sacrifices essential information. While it is front-loaded with the key action, it lacks detail that would make it genuinely helpful for an agent. It earns a middle score for efficiency but not for informativeness.

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?

Given the tool's three parameters, the existence of an output schema, and the large set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the category filtering, limit usage, or return structure, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'query', 'category', or 'limit' beyond their names. The values and constraints (e.g., category being nullable, limit defaulting to 20) are only in the schema, not described.

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 purpose: searching for MCP tools by description/capability. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('MCP tools'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling search tools like 'journal_search' and 'kb_search' which target different resources.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, which is critical given the many sibling search tools.

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