search

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 the search scope, the dependency on previously loaded tools, and the ranking behavior. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication or error behavior, but the semantics of a search imply safety.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the important scope limitation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the search scope and result type at a high level, but it does not describe the structure of individual hits or how 'limit' affects pagination. For a simple search tool this is adequate, though not fully complete.

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%, and the input schema already documents 'query' as 'Keywords (space-separated)' and 'limit' as 'Max results (default 20).' The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Search all configured servers and their known tools') and the result ('Returns ranked hits across server metadata and tool descriptions'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_servers or get_server_tools by describing the search scope and behavior, even without naming alternatives.

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 clear context: it searches all configured servers but only tool descriptions if tools were loaded via get_server_tools or call_tool, while server-level metadata is always searched. This implies when the tool is appropriate and includes an exclusion (servers with unloaded tools), though it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like recommend_servers.

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