mcp_search_comprehensive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search across database objects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as performance implications, result limits, pagination, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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 ('search across database objects') and adds qualifying details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on result format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for effective tool use. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context remains insufficient.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'configurable criteria' and 'by name and definition', which aligns with the schema's parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('database objects'), specifying scope ('by name and definition with configurable criteria'). It distinguishes from siblings like mcp_execute_procedure or mcp_preview_data by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential search-related siblings not listed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'configurable criteria' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like mcp_quick_data_analysis or mcp_table_analysis that might overlap in use cases, this lack of guidance is a significant gap.

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