Vitally 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. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('search for available tools') but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about pagination, result format, performance characteristics, error conditions, or what constitutes an 'available tool.' For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place: 'Vitally tool' establishes context, 'search for available tools' states the action, and 'by keyword' specifies the mechanism. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 that this is a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the contextual information is insufficient. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search, what the results look like, whether there are limitations (like maximum results), or how this tool fits into broader workflows. For a tool that presumably returns search results, the lack of output information is a significant gap.

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 the schema already fully documents the single 'keyword' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain search behavior (exact match, partial match, case sensitivity), ranking, or result filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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: 'search for available tools by keyword' (verb+resource). It specifies the search scope ('in tool names and descriptions'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_accounts' or 'search_users' - they all search different resources but share the same 'search' verb pattern without differentiation.

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. While it mentions searching 'tools' specifically, it doesn't explain when you'd search for tools versus searching for accounts or users (which are sibling tools). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for this search functionality.

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