search_servers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds 'evidence-linked deterministic rankings,' which communicates ranking stability and evidence sourcing, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, filtering behavior, or snapshot semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and output, and every word adds meaning.

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?

Despite having strong annotations and an output schema, the description omits when to use the tool, parameter semantics, and how it differs from compare_servers. For a search tool with three optional parameters, more context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description carried the burden of explaining the three parameters (query, filters, snapshot) but does not mention any of them. The schema provides names, defaults, and enums, but the meaning of 'snapshot' and how filters interact with rankings remains unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('local catalog records'), and a concrete output ('evidence-linked deterministic rankings'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling 'compare_servers' because searching and ranking are different operations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus compare_servers or any other alternative. It implies a local-catalog scope but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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