mcp_search_graph

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

Description discloses substring matching behavior, which is helpful. But no annotations exist, so description should also cover case sensitivity, pagination, limits, or what exactly 'name/id' means. It's somewhat transparent but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 output schema likely describes return format, the description covers the search mechanism. Missing details like case sensitivity or pagination would improve completeness, but not critical for a simple 1-param 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 provides basic description for 'query' param. Description adds context about substring matching on name/id, which goes beyond schema's generic 'Entity or topic to search for'. High schema coverage (100%) but description still adds value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches entities by substring matching on name/id, which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like list_entities or mcp_get_entity.

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?

Description implies usage for substring searches but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like list_entities (all entities) or mcp_get_entity (exact match). No exclusions provided.

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