Token-Efficient MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '95% token savings vs loading all tool definitions' which hints at performance characteristics, but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., tool names, descriptions, metadata), whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The behavioral context is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core functionality, and the second adds useful performance context. However, the token savings claim feels somewhat promotional and could be integrated more naturally with the tool's purpose.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., tool metadata, IDs, descriptions), how results are structured, or any limitations. The token savings mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context that an agent needs to use this tool effectively.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'keyword with optional category filter' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. The token savings mention doesn't relate to parameter usage. 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's purpose as searching tools by keyword with optional category filtering, using specific verbs ('search') and resources ('tools'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'batch_process_csv' or 'execute_code' by focusing on discovery rather than execution, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_token_efficient_tools' which is also a discovery tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions token savings, but doesn't specify when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'list_token_efficient_tools' or other discovery methods. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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