Search capabilities

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is a search operation returning 'lightweight metadata only', which implies read-only behavior and no full payload or execution. However, it does not mention result shape, pagination behavior, indexing caveats, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence carries the purpose, scope, search dimensions, and return nature with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information appears first.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description is largely complete: the query semantics are enriched, the limit is documented in the schema, and the return type is characterized. The main remaining gap is the absence of an output schema or a more concrete list of returned metadata fields, but this does not prevent a capable agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by expanding query to include tags, server id, and capability id as acceptable forms, which the schema's 'natural language or keyword query' line does not convey. The limit parameter remains fully covered by its schema description.

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 identifies the exact action ('Search'), the resource ('every indexed downstream MCP capability'), and the query dimensions (natural language, keywords, tags, server id, capability id), which clearly differentiates it from search_servers and the other sibling tools. It also specifies the return nature ('lightweight metadata only'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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 scope phrasing implies when to use it—whenever you need to discover a capability across indexed downstream MCPs—but it never explicitly states when not to use it or points to describe_capabilities/execute_capability/search_servers. Sibling names hint at those alternatives, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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