AWS Documentation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the 'official AWS Documentation Search API' and provides detailed behavioral context in the 'Search Tips' and 'Result Interpretation' sections, including how to phrase queries and what results contain. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Usage, Search Tips, Result Interpretation, Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter info in Args that's in the schema) and could be more concise by integrating tips into the main flow.

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, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral tips, result format, and parameters, providing sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without needing to explain return values explicitly.

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 documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning 'search_phrase' and 'limit' in the Args section without additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool 'searches across all AWS documentation for pages matching your search phrase' using the 'official AWS Documentation Search API.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for searching when you don't have a specific URL, unlike 'read_documentation' which likely reads specific pages, and 'recommend' which suggests content.

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 explicitly states 'Use it to find relevant documentation when you don't have a specific URL,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also distinguishes from alternatives by implying this is the tool for broad searches, while siblings like 'read_documentation' handle specific URLs.

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