Open Search MCP

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. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, users are left guessing about the response structure and operational constraints, making it incomplete for informed use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (questionId, includeAnswers, includeComments). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the impact of includeAnswers on performance or data structure. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific Stack Overflow question including answers.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Stack Overflow question'), and scope ('including answers'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_stackoverflow', which might be used for broader searches rather than fetching details for a specific question ID.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_stackoverflow' for general searches or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., when you have a specific question ID). Without such context, users might struggle to choose between this and other tools in the server.

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