Find Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not restate. It adds useful context about the next_step field for no matches. However, it fails to disclose that setting activate_top > 0 will activate providers, a side effect that contradicts the read-only implication of the default. Though the schema documents this, the description omits it, leaving a transparency 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?

Three sentences, each substantive: purpose, when-to-use, and fallback behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the discovery use case and the no-match fallback, and references an alternative creation tool. However, it omits the activate_top parameter's side effect, which is significant for an agent deciding whether to use this tool. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description is not fully complete.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's mention of 'free-text query and/or domain/region filters' merely echoes schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search the meta-data-mcp plugin registry' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing filtered search functionality and explicitly says to 'Use this FIRST when you don't know which plugin can answer a question.'

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this FIRST when you don't know which plugin can answer a question.' Also provides an alternative path by mentioning that if no plugin matches, the response includes a next_step field explaining how to autonomously create one via opendata_plugins_create.

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